The latest consultation on the South Somerset local plan closes on Friday, details are here, and you can sign up here to comment online. There are getting on for 200 comments at time of writing.
The two main issues in the modifications are:
a) a revised plan for greenfield housing in Yeovil, splitting the original larger site to the south of the town in two, one to the south on the A37, and one to the NE - it would have a lovely view of the floods in Mudford at the bottom of the hill.
b) revisions of a new housing site in Ilminster.
I've commented on 'a', my main concern being the quality of life of people living in the new housing areas. There seem to be plenty of people willing to speak up for the quality of life of existing residents, but my concern is that the space and facilities available in newer estates will get squeezed in response to the protests of the current generation of residents. That's already happened - a larger single estate came with the possibility of a range of facilities, including a potential secondary school and new place of worship. That is now off the table, with two smaller estates instead, and even plans for one of them to make up for the planning failures and poor facilities on an estate that's currently under construction.
We shouldn't be a town that's only prepared to build shoeboxes and give them a bare minimum of local facilities. If that means some sacrifices, then fair enough, other people made sacrifices for the homes that most of us are living in now.
After the consultation, we then have to see if the Planning Inspector is satisfied. If not, then we are into uncharted waters - no Local Plan at all. Whatever people are objecting to, this alternative could be far worse: no limits on development except the vague National Planning Policy Framework, plenty of work for lawyers, and much less local control over what gets the nod and what doesn't. Be careful what you wish for.
Update: neighbouring Mendip council has no local plan, and that's causing problems.
Showing posts with label South Somerset District Council Core Strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Somerset District Council Core Strategy. Show all posts
Monday, January 06, 2014
Saturday, November 02, 2013
South Somerset Local Plan - Goodbye SUE
In the latest instalment of the Local Plan for South Somerset, a revised Plan is being presented next week to the local council. This follows a warning from a government planning inspector that the plan would fail at public inquiry, and a 6 month grace period to put it right.
You can follow the history of this via the tabs, but here are the headline revisions:
- The idea of a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) has been abandoned. After successive downgrades in size from 5,000 homes to 3,000 to 2,500, SSDC is now only planning to build 1565 in the period covered by the plan (up to 2028), rather than 2500 in a period extending beyond the end of the plan, to create a bigger community
- Since this isn't big enough to provide a 'sustainable' neighbourhood (most/all facilities required by residents on-site, including health centre, secondary school, place of worship etc.), there is no compelling logic to providing it all in one place. There is also, after a re-appraisal of the alternative sites, no obvious ideal location for this site, with all 3 main options around Yeovil (S, NW, NE) coming out roughly level.
- So, SSDC are now planning on two sites, of roughly 800 houses each, one on the original SUE site by the A37 South of Yeovil, and one to the NE, next door to the current Wyndham Park development. It's worth noting that plans to develop this NE site had already been submitted by a local developer.
If this goes through the District Executive this week, there'll be a fresh round of public consultations from 28th November, and the revised plan will then go back to the planning inspector. Background papers here if you have a spare half day to read them.
You can follow the history of this via the tabs, but here are the headline revisions:
- The idea of a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) has been abandoned. After successive downgrades in size from 5,000 homes to 3,000 to 2,500, SSDC is now only planning to build 1565 in the period covered by the plan (up to 2028), rather than 2500 in a period extending beyond the end of the plan, to create a bigger community
- Since this isn't big enough to provide a 'sustainable' neighbourhood (most/all facilities required by residents on-site, including health centre, secondary school, place of worship etc.), there is no compelling logic to providing it all in one place. There is also, after a re-appraisal of the alternative sites, no obvious ideal location for this site, with all 3 main options around Yeovil (S, NW, NE) coming out roughly level.
- So, SSDC are now planning on two sites, of roughly 800 houses each, one on the original SUE site by the A37 South of Yeovil, and one to the NE, next door to the current Wyndham Park development. It's worth noting that plans to develop this NE site had already been submitted by a local developer.
If this goes through the District Executive this week, there'll be a fresh round of public consultations from 28th November, and the revised plan will then go back to the planning inspector. Background papers here if you have a spare half day to read them.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Housing Policy - Mind the Gap
I'm one of the few people outside East Coker who's been following every twist and turn of the planning process in South Somerset. The District Council plan - covering development in the area up to 2028 - is currently up in the air, after a government inspector said that in its current form it wouldn't pass muster.
Under new government rules, if there is no Local Plan in place, developers can propose schemes pretty much wherever they like. There is a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' in the national policy, a deliciously vague term which will surely generate a steady income for the legal profession over the next few years.
I spotted this comment today on a thread about planning policy (wake up at the back there)
Planning rules have already been massively relaxed with the adoption of the National Planning Policy Framework, with its mumbo jumbo "presumption in favour of sustainable development". In my area the Council has put together a 5 year housing plan which specifies where development may take place. Developers simply ignore it as it`s not yet been officially sanctified by the Planning Inspectorate, get turned down at local level and appeal to the Inspectorate, who then quote the "presumption" and allow the appeal, sometimes awarding costs against the Council, on the grounds that they have not demonstrated a 5 year supply of housing land.
The longer we have no Local Plan, the more opportunity there is (especially with the market picking up) for speculative applications. And what a national developer learns in one part of the country, they'll apply everywhere. The sooner we have the Plan in place the better - even if it isn't perfect, it will be better than the alternative.
Under new government rules, if there is no Local Plan in place, developers can propose schemes pretty much wherever they like. There is a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' in the national policy, a deliciously vague term which will surely generate a steady income for the legal profession over the next few years.
I spotted this comment today on a thread about planning policy (wake up at the back there)
Planning rules have already been massively relaxed with the adoption of the National Planning Policy Framework, with its mumbo jumbo "presumption in favour of sustainable development". In my area the Council has put together a 5 year housing plan which specifies where development may take place. Developers simply ignore it as it`s not yet been officially sanctified by the Planning Inspectorate, get turned down at local level and appeal to the Inspectorate, who then quote the "presumption" and allow the appeal, sometimes awarding costs against the Council, on the grounds that they have not demonstrated a 5 year supply of housing land.
The longer we have no Local Plan, the more opportunity there is (especially with the market picking up) for speculative applications. And what a national developer learns in one part of the country, they'll apply everywhere. The sooner we have the Plan in place the better - even if it isn't perfect, it will be better than the alternative.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
South Somerset Local Plan: Advantage East Coker
Update: BBC report here, report from Western Gazette here.
Update 2 (29/7): SSDC has voted to suspend the plan for 6 months, pending further work
A little local difficulty: South Somerset District Council (SSDC) has been working for years on its Local Plan, covering development in the district up to 2028 in things like housing, jobs, environment etc.
The centrepiece of the Plan is a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) to the South of Yeovil, of 2500 homes including a secondary school, health centre (and possibly a site for a church), and land for employment and community use. This has been hotly contested by East Coker, a village to the S of Yeovil, whose expensive views/rural tranquility and quality of life (depending on how you look at it) are seen to be at stake.
The plan has recently been going through a public enquiry with a government planning inspector. This is the crucial hurdle - if he declares the plan 'sound', it has legal force and becomes the basis for local planning and development for the next 15 years. If he declares it 'unsound', then we fall into the untested hands of the NPPF (National Policy Planning Framework), with its presumption that planning permission will be granted on new developments, and is effectively a government sanctioned development free-for-all, with added spin-offs for the legal profession in deciding what the broad principles of the NPPF actually mean.
The inspector has just released his interim findings, and they are grim reading for SSDC. He has three major concerns - one is a technical issue about employment land in some of our larger villages, one about the growth of Ilminster (on both he judges the plan currently 'unsound'), and the biggie is about the SUE. Though he supports the principle of a 'sustainable' large estate (i.e. one which has most of its required facilities and employment land on site rather than off-site), there is a catalogue of weaknesses in the evidence for where it should go. SSDC had used a scoring system covering several key factors (travel, employment, access to services, health and wellbeing etc.) to compare alternative sites: the inspectors report argues that they have consistently over-egged the South Yeovil option, and that in reality there is much less to choose between alternative sites than SSDC have claimed.
There is so much remedial work to do on the Plan that the inspector also questions whether a 6 month 'time out' would actually give the council time to rewrite a 'sound' Plan, but if they don't revise it, it seems likely to be thrown out anyway. And then we are through the looking glass. To use a tennis metaphor, the first serve has gone out, and there's a serious danger of a double fault.
The council have responded in a remarkably upbeat way, noting that large swathes of the Plan are seen as ok (including projected housing totals, which have been a persistent bone of contention, and a repeated focus of lobbying).
I really do hope they can get this together: whilst I imagine the report has gone down well in East Coker - and vindicates their consistent and detailed lobbying - it's not good news for the rest of the District. At least with SSDC in control of the planning process, there are people who are accountable to the community and have something resembling its best interests at heart, even if they don't always deliver on that. Whilst we have some smaller local developers who want to work with the community, (the estate I live on was put together by a local developer and works really well), that's not a reputation shared with the likes of Persimmon and Barratts.
Update 2 (29/7): SSDC has voted to suspend the plan for 6 months, pending further work
A little local difficulty: South Somerset District Council (SSDC) has been working for years on its Local Plan, covering development in the district up to 2028 in things like housing, jobs, environment etc.
The centrepiece of the Plan is a Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) to the South of Yeovil, of 2500 homes including a secondary school, health centre (and possibly a site for a church), and land for employment and community use. This has been hotly contested by East Coker, a village to the S of Yeovil, whose expensive views/rural tranquility and quality of life (depending on how you look at it) are seen to be at stake.
The plan has recently been going through a public enquiry with a government planning inspector. This is the crucial hurdle - if he declares the plan 'sound', it has legal force and becomes the basis for local planning and development for the next 15 years. If he declares it 'unsound', then we fall into the untested hands of the NPPF (National Policy Planning Framework), with its presumption that planning permission will be granted on new developments, and is effectively a government sanctioned development free-for-all, with added spin-offs for the legal profession in deciding what the broad principles of the NPPF actually mean.
The inspector has just released his interim findings, and they are grim reading for SSDC. He has three major concerns - one is a technical issue about employment land in some of our larger villages, one about the growth of Ilminster (on both he judges the plan currently 'unsound'), and the biggie is about the SUE. Though he supports the principle of a 'sustainable' large estate (i.e. one which has most of its required facilities and employment land on site rather than off-site), there is a catalogue of weaknesses in the evidence for where it should go. SSDC had used a scoring system covering several key factors (travel, employment, access to services, health and wellbeing etc.) to compare alternative sites: the inspectors report argues that they have consistently over-egged the South Yeovil option, and that in reality there is much less to choose between alternative sites than SSDC have claimed.
There is so much remedial work to do on the Plan that the inspector also questions whether a 6 month 'time out' would actually give the council time to rewrite a 'sound' Plan, but if they don't revise it, it seems likely to be thrown out anyway. And then we are through the looking glass. To use a tennis metaphor, the first serve has gone out, and there's a serious danger of a double fault.
The council have responded in a remarkably upbeat way, noting that large swathes of the Plan are seen as ok (including projected housing totals, which have been a persistent bone of contention, and a repeated focus of lobbying).
I really do hope they can get this together: whilst I imagine the report has gone down well in East Coker - and vindicates their consistent and detailed lobbying - it's not good news for the rest of the District. At least with SSDC in control of the planning process, there are people who are accountable to the community and have something resembling its best interests at heart, even if they don't always deliver on that. Whilst we have some smaller local developers who want to work with the community, (the estate I live on was put together by a local developer and works really well), that's not a reputation shared with the likes of Persimmon and Barratts.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
So much for the Local Plan
According to a story in todays Western Gazette, one observation by one planning inspector is threatening to spanner the whole planning process for South Somerset. The local council has spent years trying to develop a local plan which, ironically, has had most opposition from people suggesting it over-estimated the need for new housing. A government inspector has now announced she reckons they're 5000 homes short. There's speculation that it could lead to a development free-for-all in the area.
Personally I'd rather have the Council leading the process of building and developing new communities, with suitable planning for facilities, infrastructure etc. (even if they have made a mess of this at times in the past), rather than a developer or (in Yeovils case) an Oxford college, whose prime concern will be maximising revenue. They don't have to live with the consequences, we do.
Maybe East Coker will suddenly swing behind the council plan now, if this is the alternative. I just find it bizarre that one comment from one government official could create such disruption and uncertainty.
All this on the day the government announces plans to loosen up planning laws so as to jump-start the housing market. With average prices still 9-10 times the average income, I really can't see any planning reform making that happen. 15 years ago, prices were only 3x the average income. At the same time, they're cutting the requirment for social housing, as waiting lists grow and (with the changes to housing benefit) this is only going to get worse. Unless the homeless are all going to lodge in these new conservatories that the middle classes will build, I really can't see the logic of the proposals.
There is a case for making things quicker - I'm aware of a couple of local cases where Somerset County Council's involvement has slowed things down considerably. But it would be better to bring everything under one planning authority, rather than scrap the planning rules entirely.
Personally I'd rather have the Council leading the process of building and developing new communities, with suitable planning for facilities, infrastructure etc. (even if they have made a mess of this at times in the past), rather than a developer or (in Yeovils case) an Oxford college, whose prime concern will be maximising revenue. They don't have to live with the consequences, we do.
Maybe East Coker will suddenly swing behind the council plan now, if this is the alternative. I just find it bizarre that one comment from one government official could create such disruption and uncertainty.
All this on the day the government announces plans to loosen up planning laws so as to jump-start the housing market. With average prices still 9-10 times the average income, I really can't see any planning reform making that happen. 15 years ago, prices were only 3x the average income. At the same time, they're cutting the requirment for social housing, as waiting lists grow and (with the changes to housing benefit) this is only going to get worse. Unless the homeless are all going to lodge in these new conservatories that the middle classes will build, I really can't see the logic of the proposals.
There is a case for making things quicker - I'm aware of a couple of local cases where Somerset County Council's involvement has slowed things down considerably. But it would be better to bring everything under one planning authority, rather than scrap the planning rules entirely.
Friday, July 20, 2012
South Somerset Local Plan - last chance to comment
In local news....
The nearly final version of the South Somerset Local Plan for 2006-28 is up for consultation, before it goes to a government planning inspector (this autumn) then comes back for approval in 2013.
You can comment online here, either through printing out a comments form or going to the plan itself and commenting on the relevant section. Comments close on August 10th,
A few thoughts from me:
- Each version of the plan has become successively vaguer about community provision in new housing areas. This one commits to schools, health centre, employment land and green space in a large 'Urban Extension' (2500 homes) but leaves everything else up for grabs. There are phrases about what the council 'considers necessary' (Policy SS6), which is a blank cheque to planners.
- 234 homes are planned to be crammed in to existing Key Sites (Wyndham Park, Lufton and Brimsmore). There are already 150 extra homes planned on Wyndham Park on top of the initial 700, and I must admit it's hard to see how they could be more densely packed in than they already are. But is the council getting any more money out of developers for these? It doesn't look like it.
- The 'Sustainable Urban Extension' (SUE) is billed to start in 2016, or 2017, depending which bit of the plan you read. With 2 estates 1/3 the size of this still waiting to begin 15 years after they were first mooted, this just seems unrealistic.
- Along with proposals for the SUE is an 'Infrastructure Delivery Plan'. Pages 28-9 recommend setting aside some land for 'faith infrastructure' within the new estate. That's encouraging, but nearly everything in the report is conditional on finding the money.
- One of the more striking stats in the report is that the ratio of house prices to incomes rose from 3.86 in 2000 to 10 in 2006, and has only drifted down slightly since then. Now that the property is back to being a home, rather than an investment, I can't see how the housing market will recover until the ratio is significantly lower than it is at present. Which will be painful for anyone in the housing market already.
- Demographically, South Somerset is a pretty good place to live: lower than the national average on crime, unemployment, children at risk, and life expectancy 4 years higher than the national average. We have less deprivation, and more retired people than the average: one challenge for the plan is to keep attracting younger people to the area through creating jobs, to keep the population in balance as it steadily ages.
- The first of the councils 9 'Strategic Objectives' is Safe, resilient, socially just, inclusive and sustainable communities providing employment, homes and services in close proximity with strong networks and confident people sharing respect for each other. Strip away the jargon and hopefully that's something we can all support.
The nearly final version of the South Somerset Local Plan for 2006-28 is up for consultation, before it goes to a government planning inspector (this autumn) then comes back for approval in 2013.
You can comment online here, either through printing out a comments form or going to the plan itself and commenting on the relevant section. Comments close on August 10th,
A few thoughts from me:
- Each version of the plan has become successively vaguer about community provision in new housing areas. This one commits to schools, health centre, employment land and green space in a large 'Urban Extension' (2500 homes) but leaves everything else up for grabs. There are phrases about what the council 'considers necessary' (Policy SS6), which is a blank cheque to planners.
- 234 homes are planned to be crammed in to existing Key Sites (Wyndham Park, Lufton and Brimsmore). There are already 150 extra homes planned on Wyndham Park on top of the initial 700, and I must admit it's hard to see how they could be more densely packed in than they already are. But is the council getting any more money out of developers for these? It doesn't look like it.
- The 'Sustainable Urban Extension' (SUE) is billed to start in 2016, or 2017, depending which bit of the plan you read. With 2 estates 1/3 the size of this still waiting to begin 15 years after they were first mooted, this just seems unrealistic.
- Along with proposals for the SUE is an 'Infrastructure Delivery Plan'. Pages 28-9 recommend setting aside some land for 'faith infrastructure' within the new estate. That's encouraging, but nearly everything in the report is conditional on finding the money.
- One of the more striking stats in the report is that the ratio of house prices to incomes rose from 3.86 in 2000 to 10 in 2006, and has only drifted down slightly since then. Now that the property is back to being a home, rather than an investment, I can't see how the housing market will recover until the ratio is significantly lower than it is at present. Which will be painful for anyone in the housing market already.
- Demographically, South Somerset is a pretty good place to live: lower than the national average on crime, unemployment, children at risk, and life expectancy 4 years higher than the national average. We have less deprivation, and more retired people than the average: one challenge for the plan is to keep attracting younger people to the area through creating jobs, to keep the population in balance as it steadily ages.
- The first of the councils 9 'Strategic Objectives' is Safe, resilient, socially just, inclusive and sustainable communities providing employment, homes and services in close proximity with strong networks and confident people sharing respect for each other. Strip away the jargon and hopefully that's something we can all support.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
South Somerset Local Plan - final consultation
Full details of the revised Local Plan for South Somerset have now gone up on the council website, there's a 6 week consultation window until early August, all the responses go to the national Planning Inspectorate, who then carry out a public enquiry into the plan. If approved, the plan will be finalised in 2013, which is a bit odd given that it dates from 2006.
Respondents are encouraged to say supportive as well as critical things. Once I've had a plough through I may try and highlight one or two things here. The headline is still the proposed 2500 home extension on the South side of Yeovil, and still in the plan is the report which recommends a sizeable site for 'faith infrastructure' as part of that new estate (p28-9). Might be an interesting precedent for other local councils in the area?
Respondents are encouraged to say supportive as well as critical things. Once I've had a plough through I may try and highlight one or two things here. The headline is still the proposed 2500 home extension on the South side of Yeovil, and still in the plan is the report which recommends a sizeable site for 'faith infrastructure' as part of that new estate (p28-9). Might be an interesting precedent for other local councils in the area?
Monday, June 25, 2012
A Surfeit of Democracy? Yet Another Consultation on the South Somerset Local Plan
The third round of consultations is about to start on the South Somerset Local Plan, this time on a redraft of the plan being submitted to the Government for approval. There's the traditional 6 week consultation period, starting on June 28th (this Thursday) until August 10th. The plan covers housing, employment etc. for the area up to 2028.
Headlines from the latest draft are here, and will be familiar to anyone who knows the story so far. There's no change in the proposals from earlier this year, and the heated public consultation on the 'Urban Extension' of 2500 houses. The plan is still to build just over 1500 of these by 2028, and the rest after the end of the period, to the S of Yeovil with a buffer Zone between the development and the village of East Coker.
The full plan will be available for download here later this week. From personal experience, it is worth having a look if you've got the time, and putting in a response. I put in quite a few responses in the first consultation phase, and at least 2 seem to have got a result: a reduction in a bizarrely large allocation of space for changing rooms, compared to other community facilities, and the recognition of the Cambridge Horizons study on faith facilities in new housing developments, on which some of the recommendations for the urban extension are now based.
Headlines from the latest draft are here, and will be familiar to anyone who knows the story so far. There's no change in the proposals from earlier this year, and the heated public consultation on the 'Urban Extension' of 2500 houses. The plan is still to build just over 1500 of these by 2028, and the rest after the end of the period, to the S of Yeovil with a buffer Zone between the development and the village of East Coker.
The full plan will be available for download here later this week. From personal experience, it is worth having a look if you've got the time, and putting in a response. I put in quite a few responses in the first consultation phase, and at least 2 seem to have got a result: a reduction in a bizarrely large allocation of space for changing rooms, compared to other community facilities, and the recognition of the Cambridge Horizons study on faith facilities in new housing developments, on which some of the recommendations for the urban extension are now based.
Monday, April 23, 2012
South Somerset Local Plan - not pleasing all the people all the time
Update: according to Jon Gleeson's tweets, the proposed 'urban extension' to the S of Yeovil has been approved, along with the housing targets for the next 15 years.
This morning I've been at the Gateway in Yeovil for the main South Somerset Council meeting over their local plan, which takes Yeovil and South Somerset through to 2028. Nearly all the morning was taken up with contributions from the public, and the agenda stated that, should the meeting still be going at 9.30pm (from a 10am start) it would then be adjourned until the following day.
It's going to be impossible to please everyone. The main bone of contention is an attempt to plan for jobs and housing growth in the district. Disperse that growth too widely, and there isn't enough money generated by housing growth to pay for extra community facilities where the growth happens. Clump it together, and people nearby complain about the effect on their community. South Somerset council has taken the latter option, with plans for a 2500 home 'eco town' to the South of Yeovil. The development will include primary and secondary schools, local shops and businesses, and even the possibility of land for 'faith facilities'.
Most of this morning was spent hearing arguments from residents of East Coker and Barwick, near the proposed site, on why the housing should either be a) somewhere else or b) more widely dispersed. Or, on the other side, residents from the N and W of Yeovil (Montacute, Tintinhull, Chilthorne Domer, Stoke) on why (as the 2nd preference for the eco town) the council was making the right decision in preferring the E Coker option.
There's no way to do this in a way which keeps everyone happy. The danger is that the residents of the new housing are the ones who lose out, either because the housing is crammed in to reduce the impact (50 dwellings per hectare is the standard now, it wasn't long ago it was 30. Don't expect any gardens in these new estates), or the numbers are whittled down, reducing the money available to pay for community infrastructure.
Either way, I was glad I wasn't on the council. Glad also that I wasn't a tree, looking at the piles of paperwork on the tables. But now praying for the wisdom of Solomon for the 60 people who's job it is to make this decision.
BBC people were interviewing folk during the interval this morning, and an ITV van was parking up as I left.
This morning I've been at the Gateway in Yeovil for the main South Somerset Council meeting over their local plan, which takes Yeovil and South Somerset through to 2028. Nearly all the morning was taken up with contributions from the public, and the agenda stated that, should the meeting still be going at 9.30pm (from a 10am start) it would then be adjourned until the following day.
It's going to be impossible to please everyone. The main bone of contention is an attempt to plan for jobs and housing growth in the district. Disperse that growth too widely, and there isn't enough money generated by housing growth to pay for extra community facilities where the growth happens. Clump it together, and people nearby complain about the effect on their community. South Somerset council has taken the latter option, with plans for a 2500 home 'eco town' to the South of Yeovil. The development will include primary and secondary schools, local shops and businesses, and even the possibility of land for 'faith facilities'.
Most of this morning was spent hearing arguments from residents of East Coker and Barwick, near the proposed site, on why the housing should either be a) somewhere else or b) more widely dispersed. Or, on the other side, residents from the N and W of Yeovil (Montacute, Tintinhull, Chilthorne Domer, Stoke) on why (as the 2nd preference for the eco town) the council was making the right decision in preferring the E Coker option.
There's no way to do this in a way which keeps everyone happy. The danger is that the residents of the new housing are the ones who lose out, either because the housing is crammed in to reduce the impact (50 dwellings per hectare is the standard now, it wasn't long ago it was 30. Don't expect any gardens in these new estates), or the numbers are whittled down, reducing the money available to pay for community infrastructure.
Either way, I was glad I wasn't on the council. Glad also that I wasn't a tree, looking at the piles of paperwork on the tables. But now praying for the wisdom of Solomon for the 60 people who's job it is to make this decision.
BBC people were interviewing folk during the interval this morning, and an ITV van was parking up as I left.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
South Somerset Core Strategy: Issues
A few issues and thoughts from reading hundreds of pages of council documents for this weeks meeting. All references below can be found at this link.
Headlines
- The plan period now goes to 2028, not 2026
- SSDC are aiming to build almost 16,000 new homes in that time. Half of these will be in Yeovil, and some are the sites we already know about (Brimsmore, Lufton, Lyde Rd).
- 2500 will be an 'eco town' to the south of Yeovil, including a primary and secondary school, employment land, and according to the Infrastructure plan, space for a place of worship.
- housing density creeps ever upwards, there's now a standard of 45 dwellings per hectare. Or 'crowded' if you prefer adjectives.
- SSDC want to provide land to support 5750 new jobs in the Yeovil area.
- Next step is a report to full concil in April, followed by more consultations and a planning inspectors report, which will all happen this year.
Issues:
- SSDC has withdrawn the idea of 'thresholds' for new developments, above which certain facilities (e.g. play space, school, meeting space) have to be provided. There is some guidance on what should be provided ('PPG17') which the council will follow instead. I'm concerned that this weakens the commitment to community facilities. Following the Wyndham Park fiasco (nothing for the community at all) and a downgrade at Lufton (from a freestanding community hall to one tacked onto the new school), the lack of a concrete trigger point weakens the situation still further.
- A new map of protected flight paths for Westlands rules out any development in the direction of Brympton House/West Coker.
- Though the initial thoughts for the eco town involve a 'local centre', possible health centre, and other vague commitments to communit facilities, there is a massive funding gap between the desired and the actual. What will get chopped if the funding doesn't appear?
- According to the Infrastructure Development Plan ('IDP', appendix H, a key document), Yeovil Hospital won't be expanding, but the Trust will be aiming to deliver out of hours services through local health centres, including minor surgery.
- "It is recommended that the need for new religious infrastructure is met by the provision of a 0.5 ha land allocation in the masterplanning for the Urban Extension in Yeovil" (IDP p29). Good to hear, it'll be interesting to see how this progresses.
- The IDP has some interesting stuff in its own appendix, on the phasing of various infrastructure projects. For example, that each of the primary schools on the current key sites will be 2 form entry (that's a new one!), the Lyde Rd one scheduled for 2010-15 (really? There are currently 200 surplus school places on that side of town), and various new community halls with no specified location.
anyway, should be a fun meeting tomorrow.....
Headlines
- The plan period now goes to 2028, not 2026
- SSDC are aiming to build almost 16,000 new homes in that time. Half of these will be in Yeovil, and some are the sites we already know about (Brimsmore, Lufton, Lyde Rd).
- 2500 will be an 'eco town' to the south of Yeovil, including a primary and secondary school, employment land, and according to the Infrastructure plan, space for a place of worship.
- housing density creeps ever upwards, there's now a standard of 45 dwellings per hectare. Or 'crowded' if you prefer adjectives.
- SSDC want to provide land to support 5750 new jobs in the Yeovil area.
- Next step is a report to full concil in April, followed by more consultations and a planning inspectors report, which will all happen this year.
Issues:
- SSDC has withdrawn the idea of 'thresholds' for new developments, above which certain facilities (e.g. play space, school, meeting space) have to be provided. There is some guidance on what should be provided ('PPG17') which the council will follow instead. I'm concerned that this weakens the commitment to community facilities. Following the Wyndham Park fiasco (nothing for the community at all) and a downgrade at Lufton (from a freestanding community hall to one tacked onto the new school), the lack of a concrete trigger point weakens the situation still further.
- A new map of protected flight paths for Westlands rules out any development in the direction of Brympton House/West Coker.
- Though the initial thoughts for the eco town involve a 'local centre', possible health centre, and other vague commitments to communit facilities, there is a massive funding gap between the desired and the actual. What will get chopped if the funding doesn't appear?
- According to the Infrastructure Development Plan ('IDP', appendix H, a key document), Yeovil Hospital won't be expanding, but the Trust will be aiming to deliver out of hours services through local health centres, including minor surgery.
- "It is recommended that the need for new religious infrastructure is met by the provision of a 0.5 ha land allocation in the masterplanning for the Urban Extension in Yeovil" (IDP p29). Good to hear, it'll be interesting to see how this progresses.
- The IDP has some interesting stuff in its own appendix, on the phasing of various infrastructure projects. For example, that each of the primary schools on the current key sites will be 2 form entry (that's a new one!), the Lyde Rd one scheduled for 2010-15 (really? There are currently 200 surplus school places on that side of town), and various new community halls with no specified location.
anyway, should be a fun meeting tomorrow.....
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Breaking: South Somerset Core Strategy decisions published
A one-off post for Lent, to keep local folks up to date with some breaking news.
Details of the South Somerset Council response to public consultations on their 'core strategy' (housing, transport, employment, development etc. until 2028) are now online. The first of several meetings where this will be discussed is next Wednesday at the Gateway in Yeovil.
I've not read it in detail yet, but some headlines:
- Total housing need 2008-28 adjudged to be just under 16,000 new houses.
- Just under 8,000 of these will be in Yeovil, of which 2,500 will be in an 'urban extension'.
- Despite extensive local lobbying, the 'South and West' option is the one the council wants to pursue, there is an outline 'masterplan' of where the site will go here. It will disappoint campaigners in East Coker and please anyone who has to live in, or drive through, NW Yeovil. There's no way of pleasing everyone, more important is that the new community is well planned and designed for quality of life and neighbourhood. And that as local churches we engage positively with it.
Right, back to my cloister....
Update: new advice on community provision, commissioned by the council, recommends a 0.5 hectare plot of land in the urban extension be allocated for 'religious infrastructure' (see p28-9). Excellent news.
Details of the South Somerset Council response to public consultations on their 'core strategy' (housing, transport, employment, development etc. until 2028) are now online. The first of several meetings where this will be discussed is next Wednesday at the Gateway in Yeovil.
I've not read it in detail yet, but some headlines:
- Total housing need 2008-28 adjudged to be just under 16,000 new houses.
- Just under 8,000 of these will be in Yeovil, of which 2,500 will be in an 'urban extension'.
- Despite extensive local lobbying, the 'South and West' option is the one the council wants to pursue, there is an outline 'masterplan' of where the site will go here. It will disappoint campaigners in East Coker and please anyone who has to live in, or drive through, NW Yeovil. There's no way of pleasing everyone, more important is that the new community is well planned and designed for quality of life and neighbourhood. And that as local churches we engage positively with it.
Right, back to my cloister....
Update: new advice on community provision, commissioned by the council, recommends a 0.5 hectare plot of land in the urban extension be allocated for 'religious infrastructure' (see p28-9). Excellent news.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
South Somerset Core Strategy - Schedule for Open Meetings
This came through earlier in the week:
South Somerset District Council - Draft Core Strategy Committee Meetings Timetable
I am writing to respondents to the public consultation on the Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options), October 2010 and also to those who have expressed an interest in the Core Strategy. Over recent months officers have been considering and responding to the issues that arose during the consultation process. Their findings and recommendations will be reported to and considered by the Council's Area Committees and the District Executive during February and March before consideration by Full Council in April. The timetable of meetings is set out below:
Area North 22 February 2012 1.30pm, Edgar Hall, Somerton, TA11 6SB. (Say hello to my fellow blogger Muck and Brass if you go to that one. )
Area South 7 March 2012 10.00am The Gateway, Yeovil, BA20 1QN
Area East 14 March 2012 10.00am Memorial Hall, Wincanton, BA9 9JF
Area West 21 March 2012 4.00pm The Shrubbery, Ilminster, TA19 9AR
Special District Executive 26 March 2012 10.00am The Gateway, Yeovil, BA20 1QN
Full Council 23 April 2012 6.00pm The Gateway, Yeovil, BA20 1QN
Please Note:
1) The dates for the Special District Executive and Full Council are provisional at this stage. You will be informed in advance if there are any changes to these dates.
2) Each Area Committee will only actively consider those development proposals within their area boundaries.
3) The timing of consideration of the Core Strategy is subject to other agenda items.
All meetings are open to the public and you are welcome to attend. Agendas and Reports will be available 5 working days before each meeting on-line at http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/councillors-and-democracy/meetings-and-decisions/agendas-and-minutes/ and in Council Offices. The Minutes will also be published on-line and made available in Council Offices. For further information please contact the Committee Administrator for the relevant Committee on 01935 462462.
The most talked about aspect of this is the plan for an 'Eco Town' to the south of the town centre, which has been the focus of intensive lobbying in some quarters. I hope that the final outcome reflects what's best for the whole community, including those who will eventually live in the eco town.
And if you're going to the meetings at the Gateway, do give yourself time to visit the excellent coffee shop.
South Somerset District Council - Draft Core Strategy Committee Meetings Timetable
I am writing to respondents to the public consultation on the Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options), October 2010 and also to those who have expressed an interest in the Core Strategy. Over recent months officers have been considering and responding to the issues that arose during the consultation process. Their findings and recommendations will be reported to and considered by the Council's Area Committees and the District Executive during February and March before consideration by Full Council in April. The timetable of meetings is set out below:
Area North 22 February 2012 1.30pm, Edgar Hall, Somerton, TA11 6SB. (Say hello to my fellow blogger Muck and Brass if you go to that one. )
Area South 7 March 2012 10.00am The Gateway, Yeovil, BA20 1QN
Area East 14 March 2012 10.00am Memorial Hall, Wincanton, BA9 9JF
Area West 21 March 2012 4.00pm The Shrubbery, Ilminster, TA19 9AR
Special District Executive 26 March 2012 10.00am The Gateway, Yeovil, BA20 1QN
Full Council 23 April 2012 6.00pm The Gateway, Yeovil, BA20 1QN
Please Note:
1) The dates for the Special District Executive and Full Council are provisional at this stage. You will be informed in advance if there are any changes to these dates.
2) Each Area Committee will only actively consider those development proposals within their area boundaries.
3) The timing of consideration of the Core Strategy is subject to other agenda items.
All meetings are open to the public and you are welcome to attend. Agendas and Reports will be available 5 working days before each meeting on-line at http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/councillors-and-democracy/meetings-and-decisions/agendas-and-minutes/ and in Council Offices. The Minutes will also be published on-line and made available in Council Offices. For further information please contact the Committee Administrator for the relevant Committee on 01935 462462.
The most talked about aspect of this is the plan for an 'Eco Town' to the south of the town centre, which has been the focus of intensive lobbying in some quarters. I hope that the final outcome reflects what's best for the whole community, including those who will eventually live in the eco town.
And if you're going to the meetings at the Gateway, do give yourself time to visit the excellent coffee shop.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
South Somerset Core Strategy: the Final Bite
UPDATE 11TH OCTOBER: THESE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN CANCELLED, TO BE REARRANGED FOR THE NEW YEAR.
Just in...
Message from South Somerset District Council Consultations
South Somerset District Council - Draft Core Strategy, Committee Meetings Timetable
I am writing to you as a respondent to the public consultation on the Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options), October 2010 (and also those who have expressed an interest in the Core Strategy). Over recent months officers have been considering and responding to the issues that arose during the consultation process. Their findings and recommendations are going to be reported to and considered by the Council's Area Committees and then the District Executive during October and November; Full Council will consider the report on 26 January 2012. The timetable of meetings is set out below:
Area West 19 October, 2011 5.30pm The Shrubbery, Ilminster
Area North 26 October, 2011 2.00pm Seavington Village Hall, Seavington
Area South 14 November, 2011 10.00am - 4.00pm Council Chamber, Brympton Way, Yeovil
Area East 9 November, 2011 2.30pm Churchfields, Wincanton
Special District Executive 22 November, 2011 9.30am Council Chamber, Brympton Way, Yeovil
Full Council 26 January, 2012 10.00am The GateWay, Addlewell Lane, Yeovil
Please Note: Exact timing of consideration of the Core Strategy will be subject to other agenda items.
All meetings are open to the public and you are welcome to attend.
Relevant documents should be posted here nearer the time.
I don't know how much will get changed as a result of public consultation, but if you never try you never know. This is our district, and our council, and our future. If we had the chance to say something at the time but kept quiet, we have no right to complain in the future when stuff actually happens. And do pray for the people involved in this, it's a mammoth document and a mammoth task, getting it right or getting it wrong can make a huge difference to the quality of local life.
Just in...
Message from South Somerset District Council Consultations
South Somerset District Council - Draft Core Strategy, Committee Meetings Timetable
I am writing to you as a respondent to the public consultation on the Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options), October 2010 (and also those who have expressed an interest in the Core Strategy). Over recent months officers have been considering and responding to the issues that arose during the consultation process. Their findings and recommendations are going to be reported to and considered by the Council's Area Committees and then the District Executive during October and November; Full Council will consider the report on 26 January 2012. The timetable of meetings is set out below:
Area West 19 October, 2011 5.30pm The Shrubbery, Ilminster
Area North 26 October, 2011 2.00pm Seavington Village Hall, Seavington
Area South 14 November, 2011 10.00am - 4.00pm Council Chamber, Brympton Way, Yeovil
Area East 9 November, 2011 2.30pm Churchfields, Wincanton
Special District Executive 22 November, 2011 9.30am Council Chamber, Brympton Way, Yeovil
Full Council 26 January, 2012 10.00am The GateWay, Addlewell Lane, Yeovil
Please Note: Exact timing of consideration of the Core Strategy will be subject to other agenda items.
All meetings are open to the public and you are welcome to attend.
Relevant documents should be posted here nearer the time.
I don't know how much will get changed as a result of public consultation, but if you never try you never know. This is our district, and our council, and our future. If we had the chance to say something at the time but kept quiet, we have no right to complain in the future when stuff actually happens. And do pray for the people involved in this, it's a mammoth document and a mammoth task, getting it right or getting it wrong can make a huge difference to the quality of local life.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
TS Eliot Holds Back the Bulldozers
Whilst TS Eliot rotates in his sarcophagus, plans for an eco town of 5000 new homes to the South of Yeovil have been taking shape. East Coker, a pretty little village (of which Somerset and Dorset have quite a few), is on the edge of the development area and claims Eliot as one of its sons - and, more recently, as poster boy for the East Coker Preservation campaign.
Last year, the 5000 was cut to 3700 homes, after the new government scrapped regional planning authorities, and let local councils have a bit more freedom in choosing housing targets. Even on that basis, Yeovil still qualified for government funding to look at the feasibility of an 'eco town', a low-carbon housing development.
But is this still on the cards? The leader of South Somerset District Council, Ric Pallister (who until recently was in charge of Housing) recently met with the government over planning issues. I wonder if the local campaign, with some fairly high profile supporters, has gained the ear of one or two in high office - Cllr Pallister is now quoted this week in our local paper supporting a form of 'green belt' protection around the permeter of Yeovil: "It is a watered down green belt. This is something we have not been able to do before. My opinion is that a figure of between 2000 and 2500 homes is possible for the south side. That would leave us with between 1200 and 1500 homes to put somewhere else. We could put some into existing develpopments, and some incremental development to the North and East of Yeovil."
This is a sizeable revision. Only a few months ago, SSDC had decided on the 'preferred option' of expanding Yeovil to the South. But now something seems to have given: either SSDC have had second thoughts about their 'preferred option', or they've had second thoughts about the eco town - (I can't see how a development of 2000 could be planned in the way the eco town envisages). All this in the context of a big national debate over new planning laws, including the status of green belt land.
I can fully understand the campaign to protect East Coker from housing developments, but here is what an amended proposal could mean:
- increased cramming of houses into the 3 new sites around the W, N and E of Yeovil. Each is planned for 700-ish homes, this sounds like they could get pushed to nearer 1000. And will there be any extra facilities for those communities? Too late, the legal agreements are signed and sealed, only one of the three estates looks like it has adequate facilities (Brimsmore) but that's been the victim of countless hold-ups. And we also now know that many of these homes will be too small. That's all the more likely if they are being shoehorned into existing developments.
- 2000 homes isn't a 'town', it's just a medium sized new estate. So bang would go the chance of designing and delivering any kind of sizeable and well-resourced hub.
(note of caution: this is an 'opinion' only, but it is the opinion of the council leader, so that's pretty significant.)
East Coker can speak up for itself, but who wll speak up for the new developments? It may be that all the population and housing projections are wrong, that the divorce and immigration rates drop (meaning we need less homes) but this is currently 8000 people we're talking about. Do we want to give them somewhere decent to live, or just find the place where least people will notice them? Say what you like about the siting of the new development, but at least it was ambitious, and paid some attention to the quality of life in the new development, not just getting as many properties into as small a space as possible.
South Somerset District Council is due to discuss some of this in October. Consultation
on the longer-term strategy is still ongoing, and due to be finalised next year. There is clearly some wiggle room still to be had. Watch this space.
Last year, the 5000 was cut to 3700 homes, after the new government scrapped regional planning authorities, and let local councils have a bit more freedom in choosing housing targets. Even on that basis, Yeovil still qualified for government funding to look at the feasibility of an 'eco town', a low-carbon housing development.
But is this still on the cards? The leader of South Somerset District Council, Ric Pallister (who until recently was in charge of Housing) recently met with the government over planning issues. I wonder if the local campaign, with some fairly high profile supporters, has gained the ear of one or two in high office - Cllr Pallister is now quoted this week in our local paper supporting a form of 'green belt' protection around the permeter of Yeovil: "It is a watered down green belt. This is something we have not been able to do before. My opinion is that a figure of between 2000 and 2500 homes is possible for the south side. That would leave us with between 1200 and 1500 homes to put somewhere else. We could put some into existing develpopments, and some incremental development to the North and East of Yeovil."
This is a sizeable revision. Only a few months ago, SSDC had decided on the 'preferred option' of expanding Yeovil to the South. But now something seems to have given: either SSDC have had second thoughts about their 'preferred option', or they've had second thoughts about the eco town - (I can't see how a development of 2000 could be planned in the way the eco town envisages). All this in the context of a big national debate over new planning laws, including the status of green belt land.
I can fully understand the campaign to protect East Coker from housing developments, but here is what an amended proposal could mean:
- increased cramming of houses into the 3 new sites around the W, N and E of Yeovil. Each is planned for 700-ish homes, this sounds like they could get pushed to nearer 1000. And will there be any extra facilities for those communities? Too late, the legal agreements are signed and sealed, only one of the three estates looks like it has adequate facilities (Brimsmore) but that's been the victim of countless hold-ups. And we also now know that many of these homes will be too small. That's all the more likely if they are being shoehorned into existing developments.
- 2000 homes isn't a 'town', it's just a medium sized new estate. So bang would go the chance of designing and delivering any kind of sizeable and well-resourced hub.
(note of caution: this is an 'opinion' only, but it is the opinion of the council leader, so that's pretty significant.)
East Coker can speak up for itself, but who wll speak up for the new developments? It may be that all the population and housing projections are wrong, that the divorce and immigration rates drop (meaning we need less homes) but this is currently 8000 people we're talking about. Do we want to give them somewhere decent to live, or just find the place where least people will notice them? Say what you like about the siting of the new development, but at least it was ambitious, and paid some attention to the quality of life in the new development, not just getting as many properties into as small a space as possible.
South Somerset District Council is due to discuss some of this in October. Consultation
on the longer-term strategy is still ongoing, and due to be finalised next year. There is clearly some wiggle room still to be had. Watch this space.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Eco Towns - Green Light or Red Light?
I wonder what the future will be for the planned 'Eco Town' near Yeovil. This report from the Independent suggests that the 'Eco Towns' planned under Labour will be shelved as part of the savings plans under the new government.
Here's the relevant snippet:
Eco-towns
Gordon Brown's flagship scheme for eco-towns across the UK is set to be scrapped by the coalition. Cash for the second wave of developments, announced earlier this year, has been frozen and the scheme is under review, The IoS has learnt.
The first wave of four eco-towns was announced last year and will go ahead.
But the housing minister, Grant Shapps, said last night: "We will back new eco-developments with broad-based local support that are genuinely sustainable. We will not impose eco-town developments on communities that do not want them." (comment - that means nobody will get any, as I've yet to hear of a community that was happy to lose large chunks of countryside to new housing)
Mr Shapps's Labour predecessor, John Healey, said: "The shelving of the eco-town programme is a clear signal of what we can expect from Cameron's government. Having feigned concern for the environment and gestured about empowering councils, the Tories' true colours are coming through – and what they said before the election bears little resemblance to decisions they're now taking."
The move is set to anger councils – many Tory-run – that requested eco-town developments and have already spent money on plans.
At present there's nothing new on the Communities department website, though the banner at the top says "we are reviewing all content on this website". I'll bet. New eco town proposals are still being submitted, though with the scrapping of regional planning, it will be up to local councils to push them, rather than respond to the regional plans. The Yeovil proposal was in response to the South-Wests 'Regional Spatial Strategy' which called for a 5000 home 'urban extension' to the town.
A group representing house builders has warned of a 'dangerous void' in planning policy, with the new government clearer on what it's scrapping than what it's going to replace it with. If the regional planning system isn't there to translate population projections into local provision of housing, services and infrastructure for new businesses, then will 'the market' simply sort it all out? I thought we'd worked out that faith in 'the market' was vanity?
Here's the relevant snippet:
Eco-towns
Gordon Brown's flagship scheme for eco-towns across the UK is set to be scrapped by the coalition. Cash for the second wave of developments, announced earlier this year, has been frozen and the scheme is under review, The IoS has learnt.
The first wave of four eco-towns was announced last year and will go ahead.
But the housing minister, Grant Shapps, said last night: "We will back new eco-developments with broad-based local support that are genuinely sustainable. We will not impose eco-town developments on communities that do not want them." (comment - that means nobody will get any, as I've yet to hear of a community that was happy to lose large chunks of countryside to new housing)
Mr Shapps's Labour predecessor, John Healey, said: "The shelving of the eco-town programme is a clear signal of what we can expect from Cameron's government. Having feigned concern for the environment and gestured about empowering councils, the Tories' true colours are coming through – and what they said before the election bears little resemblance to decisions they're now taking."
The move is set to anger councils – many Tory-run – that requested eco-town developments and have already spent money on plans.
At present there's nothing new on the Communities department website, though the banner at the top says "we are reviewing all content on this website". I'll bet. New eco town proposals are still being submitted, though with the scrapping of regional planning, it will be up to local councils to push them, rather than respond to the regional plans. The Yeovil proposal was in response to the South-Wests 'Regional Spatial Strategy' which called for a 5000 home 'urban extension' to the town.
A group representing house builders has warned of a 'dangerous void' in planning policy, with the new government clearer on what it's scrapping than what it's going to replace it with. If the regional planning system isn't there to translate population projections into local provision of housing, services and infrastructure for new businesses, then will 'the market' simply sort it all out? I thought we'd worked out that faith in 'the market' was vanity?
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Yeovil Eco-Town and New Housing latest, and NIMBY ethics.
One thing I missed during Lent was the latest on new housing plans around Yeovil: the town has just secured £1.5m of government funding to carry out a feasibility study on an 'eco town'. This would be a 5,000 home development (which was already in the pipeline) but to higher environmental and carbon footprint standards than normal. Respondents on the BBC's 'Have Your Say' page are less than positive about the idea, but I've rarely met people who are keen to have more houses built near them.
3 potential sites have been identified, to the SW of Yeovil (Brympton house/West Coker area) South (around the A37 at Keyford) and, most interesting, across the Dorset border towards Over Compton. There's a rough chart of the possible sites here. There's going to be public consultation from later this year.
For a bit more detail, the council has also been doing a land survey (the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) for land available for new housing over the next 15 years. They've identified potential land for nearly 27,000 homes spread across 544 sites. That doesn't mean this number will get built - the current plan is for around 19,700 by 2026, and if the Conservatives get in they've promised to scrap the planning system upon which that figure is based, so goodness knows what will happen then.
The summary SHLAA report is here, with details of all the sites, where they are, and how many homes they can accomodate. There's a lot to trawl through, so it's only worth looking at if you've got 15 minutes to spare. If you want to see it in map form for the Yeovil area, try this. It's quite striking to see the areas set out: potential expansion along the A3088 corridor (increasingly surrounding Brympton D'evercy stately home) and along the A37, and West Coker becoming a village on the fringe of urban Yeovil. As I said, not all of these sites are likely to be used, and no doubt there will be local campaigns to protect a wide array of back yards....
....which set me wondering who has the moral right to make this kind of protest. Anyone with 2 children or fewer (like me) isn't reproducing at a high enough rate to maintain the UK population, let alone offset the rapidly growing army of retired people with a sufficient balance of people of working age. Result? We need net immigration, and new homes to accomodate this. Any behaviour which brings about a divorce creates 2 households out of one, thus increasing the need for housing units. Anyone with a second home that isn't vital to their work or circumstances is using 2 homes when one will do. Anyone refusing to take certain posts because of pay or conditions, requiring them to be filled by EU workers (I'm off to the dentists today - there is not a single UK born NHS dentist in the area, because all the Brits have followed the money into the private sector. Thank goodness for the Portuguese and Polish) is creating a need for net immigration. And so on.
Only semi-seriously, do any of the above have the right to protest about new housing proposals when we are living lives which make them necessary?
3 potential sites have been identified, to the SW of Yeovil (Brympton house/West Coker area) South (around the A37 at Keyford) and, most interesting, across the Dorset border towards Over Compton. There's a rough chart of the possible sites here. There's going to be public consultation from later this year.
For a bit more detail, the council has also been doing a land survey (the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) for land available for new housing over the next 15 years. They've identified potential land for nearly 27,000 homes spread across 544 sites. That doesn't mean this number will get built - the current plan is for around 19,700 by 2026, and if the Conservatives get in they've promised to scrap the planning system upon which that figure is based, so goodness knows what will happen then.
The summary SHLAA report is here, with details of all the sites, where they are, and how many homes they can accomodate. There's a lot to trawl through, so it's only worth looking at if you've got 15 minutes to spare. If you want to see it in map form for the Yeovil area, try this. It's quite striking to see the areas set out: potential expansion along the A3088 corridor (increasingly surrounding Brympton D'evercy stately home) and along the A37, and West Coker becoming a village on the fringe of urban Yeovil. As I said, not all of these sites are likely to be used, and no doubt there will be local campaigns to protect a wide array of back yards....
....which set me wondering who has the moral right to make this kind of protest. Anyone with 2 children or fewer (like me) isn't reproducing at a high enough rate to maintain the UK population, let alone offset the rapidly growing army of retired people with a sufficient balance of people of working age. Result? We need net immigration, and new homes to accomodate this. Any behaviour which brings about a divorce creates 2 households out of one, thus increasing the need for housing units. Anyone with a second home that isn't vital to their work or circumstances is using 2 homes when one will do. Anyone refusing to take certain posts because of pay or conditions, requiring them to be filled by EU workers (I'm off to the dentists today - there is not a single UK born NHS dentist in the area, because all the Brits have followed the money into the private sector. Thank goodness for the Portuguese and Polish) is creating a need for net immigration. And so on.
Only semi-seriously, do any of the above have the right to protest about new housing proposals when we are living lives which make them necessary?
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Announced Today: Yeovil & Taunton on 'Eco-Town' shortlist
Thanks to Tim for alerting me to this announcement today by the Department for Communities.
Today, the Housing Minister announced that a further nine local authorities are considering plans to develop new communities to eco-town standards.
These major new developments will need to meet the pioneering green standards set out in the eco-towns planning policy statement published in July. Proposals for sustainable developments need to include 5,000 homes and demonstrate innovative ideas for how jobs, schools and services are delivered in low carbon ways that will help in the UK respond to climate change.
Yeovil and Taunton are among the new sites.
Comments:
1. These aren't strictly eco-towns. Yeovil has already been earmarked by the Regional Spatial Strategy (the regional planning document, covering the period to 2026, which looks at housing demand, transport, employment etc.) for an 'urban extension' of 5,000 houses. So the announcement means that the local District Council are looking for this development to meet the eco-towns standard. It's not new housing, just a change of emphasis for what's already planned.
2. Conservative policy is to scrap the Regional Spatial Strategies, so it's a question of watch this space. We have no idea whether these proposals will still be on the agenda in 6 months time. Given the need for new housing, it may be difficult for the Tories to say either a) we don't need the houses or b) they shouldn't be up to high environmental standards. But we'll see.
3. One of the things which will help these things work is co-operation: e.g. car pools, so a proper eco town will only work with a certain level of community spirit. That will need not just attention to the built environment, but attention to community building. That might be an opportunity for the churches, or indeed anyone else with a passion for community, to be part of the picture.
Here are the details of the Somerset sites:
Taunton
Somerset County Council and Taunton Deane Borough Council are proposing detailed studies of potential eco-town development at Monkton Heathfield, a development area with capacity for 5,000 homes to the NE of Taunton. This is a proposal in the emerging local core strategy and the draft Regional Spatial Strategy driven by high levels of need and demand for housing. It will be a self-contained community, including employment, services and community facilities, well linked to Taunton by public transport and sustainable travel option.
The local authorities are committed to achieving the UK carbon reduction targets and funding from this programme could support more detailed feasibility and development work to prepare detailed proposals in areas such as sustainable transport, renewable energy, green infrastructure and masterplanning of development areas.Looking further ahead, lessons learned from these studies will be applied to the strategic urban extension at Taunton-Corneytrowe (SW of Taunton) which has capacity for 6-8,000 homes.
Yeovil
South Somerset District council is interested in assessing the potential of achieving eco-town standard in a possible eco-extension on the edge of Yeovil, consistent with the draft Regional Spatial Strategy and the Council's work on a draft core strategy which is due for public consultation next year. Funding from this programme would support more detailed studies of this option and potentially a masterplanning exercise.
Reports: BBC, Times online.
Today, the Housing Minister announced that a further nine local authorities are considering plans to develop new communities to eco-town standards.
These major new developments will need to meet the pioneering green standards set out in the eco-towns planning policy statement published in July. Proposals for sustainable developments need to include 5,000 homes and demonstrate innovative ideas for how jobs, schools and services are delivered in low carbon ways that will help in the UK respond to climate change.
Yeovil and Taunton are among the new sites.
Comments:
1. These aren't strictly eco-towns. Yeovil has already been earmarked by the Regional Spatial Strategy (the regional planning document, covering the period to 2026, which looks at housing demand, transport, employment etc.) for an 'urban extension' of 5,000 houses. So the announcement means that the local District Council are looking for this development to meet the eco-towns standard. It's not new housing, just a change of emphasis for what's already planned.
2. Conservative policy is to scrap the Regional Spatial Strategies, so it's a question of watch this space. We have no idea whether these proposals will still be on the agenda in 6 months time. Given the need for new housing, it may be difficult for the Tories to say either a) we don't need the houses or b) they shouldn't be up to high environmental standards. But we'll see.
3. One of the things which will help these things work is co-operation: e.g. car pools, so a proper eco town will only work with a certain level of community spirit. That will need not just attention to the built environment, but attention to community building. That might be an opportunity for the churches, or indeed anyone else with a passion for community, to be part of the picture.
Here are the details of the Somerset sites:
Taunton
Somerset County Council and Taunton Deane Borough Council are proposing detailed studies of potential eco-town development at Monkton Heathfield, a development area with capacity for 5,000 homes to the NE of Taunton. This is a proposal in the emerging local core strategy and the draft Regional Spatial Strategy driven by high levels of need and demand for housing. It will be a self-contained community, including employment, services and community facilities, well linked to Taunton by public transport and sustainable travel option.
The local authorities are committed to achieving the UK carbon reduction targets and funding from this programme could support more detailed feasibility and development work to prepare detailed proposals in areas such as sustainable transport, renewable energy, green infrastructure and masterplanning of development areas.Looking further ahead, lessons learned from these studies will be applied to the strategic urban extension at Taunton-Corneytrowe (SW of Taunton) which has capacity for 6-8,000 homes.
Yeovil
South Somerset District council is interested in assessing the potential of achieving eco-town standard in a possible eco-extension on the edge of Yeovil, consistent with the draft Regional Spatial Strategy and the Council's work on a draft core strategy which is due for public consultation next year. Funding from this programme would support more detailed studies of this option and potentially a masterplanning exercise.
Reports: BBC, Times online.
South Somerset Core Strategy: consultation response
Last year, South Somerset had a public consultation on its 'Core Strategy' on the next 20 years of development in the region, covering housing, health, employment, transport, environment and communities. Several hundred people had their say, including some readers of this blog, and the council have now issued their summary of the responses, plus the council response to the responses. (still with me?)
The Core Strategy home page has just been updated to this:
The Core Strategy 'Issue & Options' document was published for public consultation from March 7 2008 until April 25 2008. The summary of issues raised and the District Council responses will be reported to District Executive on Thursday 3 December 2009. The meeting is at the council offices on Brympton Way at 9.30am.
and has this summary of what the Core Strategy aims to do:
The Core Strategy lies at the heart of the Local Development Framework and will set out the long term planning framework for the district up to the year 2026. It has to work within national and regional planning policy guidance, and will be informed by other evidence studies and council strategies, as well as your responses. It is about meeting the needs of people up to the year 2026, by providing enough homes, jobs and services, in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way.
Once adopted, the Core Strategy will be the key, overarching policy document for development within South Somerset, directing how much development is needed and where it should go. It will contain development management policies setting out the criteria against which planning applications will be considered; so all planning applications will refer to it.
There'll be a further document published in spring/summer 2010 for more consultation. However, there will also be a General Election next year, which, from what I hear, many involved in planning, development and housebuilding are worried about. Conservative policy is to scrap the current regional planning framework for something more locally based, but it's not quite so clear how their new system will work. It may mean that years of work on housing, transport and development may get binned. We shall see.
Meanwhile, a few of the significant council responses:
- I commented in the consultation that the Strategic Vision for the area was all about the strong - jobs, new communities etc., but said nothing about the weak. Response: The Vision should be reworded to include reference to social inclusion. Ok, but not enough, what about practicalities?
- There were quite a few responses to the consultation about places of worship in new developments, there are several responses to this in different places:
1. The provision for places of worship as part of new development may be considered where there is an identified need. Fair enough.
2. It is recognised that the provision of community centres and places of worship is important to communities and this will be taken into account when considering the level and type of community facilities needed as part of any strategic allocation within the Core Strategy and will be addressed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Good, we'll have to keep an eye out for the Infrastructure Delivery Plan now. I think the council recognise that on at least one planned new estate in Yeovil, there have been mistakes in not insisting on more community facilities, so hopefully there is the will to make sure that doesn't happen again.
3. In the Health and Well Being section (8), there was a multi-choice response on what facilities should be provided in new housing developments, and at what threshold. There were lots of votes for play areas, community centres, schools etc., and a consistent call for places of worship to be provided in developments of 700-999 houses - at present there's one for every 2,000 people in Yeovil, so this is in keeping with what we currently have. However there's no offiical response to this part of the survey, so it's not really clear what the point was.
- There are plans for a 'Community Infrastructure Levy', coming in from April 2010, which will allow local councils to levy a tax on developers for new buildings, which is then used to fund community facilities, from bus stops to play areas to Sports Zones (Yeovil in-joke. Almost literally). At the moment, a contribution is negotiated with developers as part of the planning process, so I'm not sure whether the CIL replaces that. That may make it even tougher for developers to build houses at a profit than it is at present. The Conservatives plan to abolish this, so it may be the most short-lived tax in history. At present the only house building in Yeovil is by housing associations, and the only new housing area moving forward is doing so because of £10m government assistance towards affordable housing.
- Secondary School: there were calls for a new secondary to be built, as part of the planned 'urban extension' to Yeovil of 5,000 houses. That seems to be part of the picture: the blurb reads Secondary School requirement to be identified as part of the urban extension proposal.
- Housing: new housing will be at a higher density than at present: 40-50 dwellings per hectare in urban areas, less for villages. It may even go higher than 50 in some parts. Don't buy a newly built house if you like gardening, or eating together as a family, because you won't have space to do either.
If anything spectacular happens as Thursdays meeting, it'll appear here, but don't hold your breath!
The Core Strategy home page has just been updated to this:
The Core Strategy 'Issue & Options' document was published for public consultation from March 7 2008 until April 25 2008. The summary of issues raised and the District Council responses will be reported to District Executive on Thursday 3 December 2009. The meeting is at the council offices on Brympton Way at 9.30am.
and has this summary of what the Core Strategy aims to do:
The Core Strategy lies at the heart of the Local Development Framework and will set out the long term planning framework for the district up to the year 2026. It has to work within national and regional planning policy guidance, and will be informed by other evidence studies and council strategies, as well as your responses. It is about meeting the needs of people up to the year 2026, by providing enough homes, jobs and services, in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way.
Once adopted, the Core Strategy will be the key, overarching policy document for development within South Somerset, directing how much development is needed and where it should go. It will contain development management policies setting out the criteria against which planning applications will be considered; so all planning applications will refer to it.
There'll be a further document published in spring/summer 2010 for more consultation. However, there will also be a General Election next year, which, from what I hear, many involved in planning, development and housebuilding are worried about. Conservative policy is to scrap the current regional planning framework for something more locally based, but it's not quite so clear how their new system will work. It may mean that years of work on housing, transport and development may get binned. We shall see.
Meanwhile, a few of the significant council responses:
- I commented in the consultation that the Strategic Vision for the area was all about the strong - jobs, new communities etc., but said nothing about the weak. Response: The Vision should be reworded to include reference to social inclusion. Ok, but not enough, what about practicalities?
- There were quite a few responses to the consultation about places of worship in new developments, there are several responses to this in different places:
1. The provision for places of worship as part of new development may be considered where there is an identified need. Fair enough.
2. It is recognised that the provision of community centres and places of worship is important to communities and this will be taken into account when considering the level and type of community facilities needed as part of any strategic allocation within the Core Strategy and will be addressed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Good, we'll have to keep an eye out for the Infrastructure Delivery Plan now. I think the council recognise that on at least one planned new estate in Yeovil, there have been mistakes in not insisting on more community facilities, so hopefully there is the will to make sure that doesn't happen again.
3. In the Health and Well Being section (8), there was a multi-choice response on what facilities should be provided in new housing developments, and at what threshold. There were lots of votes for play areas, community centres, schools etc., and a consistent call for places of worship to be provided in developments of 700-999 houses - at present there's one for every 2,000 people in Yeovil, so this is in keeping with what we currently have. However there's no offiical response to this part of the survey, so it's not really clear what the point was.
- There are plans for a 'Community Infrastructure Levy', coming in from April 2010, which will allow local councils to levy a tax on developers for new buildings, which is then used to fund community facilities, from bus stops to play areas to Sports Zones (Yeovil in-joke. Almost literally). At the moment, a contribution is negotiated with developers as part of the planning process, so I'm not sure whether the CIL replaces that. That may make it even tougher for developers to build houses at a profit than it is at present. The Conservatives plan to abolish this, so it may be the most short-lived tax in history. At present the only house building in Yeovil is by housing associations, and the only new housing area moving forward is doing so because of £10m government assistance towards affordable housing.
- Secondary School: there were calls for a new secondary to be built, as part of the planned 'urban extension' to Yeovil of 5,000 houses. That seems to be part of the picture: the blurb reads Secondary School requirement to be identified as part of the urban extension proposal.
- Housing: new housing will be at a higher density than at present: 40-50 dwellings per hectare in urban areas, less for villages. It may even go higher than 50 in some parts. Don't buy a newly built house if you like gardening, or eating together as a family, because you won't have space to do either.
If anything spectacular happens as Thursdays meeting, it'll appear here, but don't hold your breath!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Let The One Who Has a Field, Sell It to a Developer
Housing Projections
Latest government projections suggest that in just over 20 years, there will be 6.3 million extra housholds in the England. This is a rise of nearly 30%, driven by a combination of population increase, higher life expectancy (half the extra households will be 65 and overs), fracturing families and net migration. Summary here.
Impact on the South-West
The South-West will see a rise from 2.11 million households to just over 3 million. That's 1 extra home for every 2.1 houses - picture that in your street/town.
The planning agency for the South-West has planned extra housing up to 2026 - South Somerset's share of that is 19,700 houses, of which Yeovil is identified for 11,400 extra houses.
That will increase the population of Yeovil from the current 40,000-ish to 65,000.
However, the planned totals for 2026 are based on old government projections. These new ones represent a 10% increase on previous estimates. That could be spread evenly around the area ( = 1000 extra houses for Yeovil), or done on a more 'lumpy' basis.
A final version of the 'Regional Spatial Strategy' for the South-West is due at the end of June from the Department of Communities and Local Government. I don't know whether Hazel Blears departure will affect those timings.
Here's the regional projections from 2006-2031, figures in '000. If you want to work out population, the average household size is estimated at roughly 2.2 people per household:
North East: 1,110 to 1,316 19% rise
North West: 2,931 to 3,617 23% rise
Yorkshire & The Humber: 2,181 to 2,932 34% rise
East Midlands: 1,849 to 2,539 37% rise
West Midlands: 2,237 to 2,762 23% rise
East: 2,371 to 3,211 35% rise
London: 3,178 to 4,016 26% rise
South East: 3,447 to 4,425 28% rise
South West: 2,211 to 3,001 36% rise
England: 21,515 to 27,818 29% rise
Implications for the Church of England
1. Unless there is a massive rise in ordination levels, the ratio of clergy:general population will continue to drop.
2. This in turn raises serious questions about the nature of local leadership within the CofE. We need to be planting churches which can function well with lay leadership and less clergy input, and recalibrating the ones we have to work in the same way. That's not about doing the same work with less resources, we need to rethink the work itself.
3. Ecumenical mission partnership moves up the agenda. The parish system is creaking at the seams, and in many places exists more on paper than in reality. If these projections are even half true, many areas will be transformed over the next 20 years. Ancient parish boundaries will bear less and less relationship with reality, and without a serious effort at church planting, the parish system itself will cease to mean anything.
We can be committed to neighbourhood churches without having to run them all ourselves. In nearby Weston-super-Mare, different neighbourhoods in new estates are served by a mixture of churches, not all of them Anglican. Here in Bath and Wells we've just appointed an Ecumenical Mission Enabler (had a good chat earlier this week), and the whole ecumenical agenda itself needs to focus more on collaborative mission.
4. Dioceses will need some kind of church planting strategy for new estates, and to take time to resource local church leaders who are trying to engage with new communities on the ground.
A local picture.
We have a local situation with a 4-parish benefice, 4 village churches, but where more than half the population is in an urban area on the edge of Yeovil, mostly built in the last 20 years. This neighbourhood doesn't have an accessible, local parish church, even though it falls into 3 (rural) parishes. The parish system hasn't kept up with real people and real lives, but whenever you talk, about moving boundaries people mutter darkly about how long it will take and what a faff it will be. Within current structures, with so much new housing planned, that is a picture of the future for more and more people.
If we are committed to the parish system, then we have to find a way to reform it so that it keeps on working.
and finally... presently, nobody is building anything. You can plan all you like, but at the moment neither developers, nor government, can actually afford the houses we need right now, never mind the houses of the future....
Latest government projections suggest that in just over 20 years, there will be 6.3 million extra housholds in the England. This is a rise of nearly 30%, driven by a combination of population increase, higher life expectancy (half the extra households will be 65 and overs), fracturing families and net migration. Summary here.
Impact on the South-West
The South-West will see a rise from 2.11 million households to just over 3 million. That's 1 extra home for every 2.1 houses - picture that in your street/town.
The planning agency for the South-West has planned extra housing up to 2026 - South Somerset's share of that is 19,700 houses, of which Yeovil is identified for 11,400 extra houses.
That will increase the population of Yeovil from the current 40,000-ish to 65,000.
However, the planned totals for 2026 are based on old government projections. These new ones represent a 10% increase on previous estimates. That could be spread evenly around the area ( = 1000 extra houses for Yeovil), or done on a more 'lumpy' basis.
A final version of the 'Regional Spatial Strategy' for the South-West is due at the end of June from the Department of Communities and Local Government. I don't know whether Hazel Blears departure will affect those timings.
Here's the regional projections from 2006-2031, figures in '000. If you want to work out population, the average household size is estimated at roughly 2.2 people per household:
North East: 1,110 to 1,316 19% rise
North West: 2,931 to 3,617 23% rise
Yorkshire & The Humber: 2,181 to 2,932 34% rise
East Midlands: 1,849 to 2,539 37% rise
West Midlands: 2,237 to 2,762 23% rise
East: 2,371 to 3,211 35% rise
London: 3,178 to 4,016 26% rise
South East: 3,447 to 4,425 28% rise
South West: 2,211 to 3,001 36% rise
England: 21,515 to 27,818 29% rise
Implications for the Church of England
1. Unless there is a massive rise in ordination levels, the ratio of clergy:general population will continue to drop.
2. This in turn raises serious questions about the nature of local leadership within the CofE. We need to be planting churches which can function well with lay leadership and less clergy input, and recalibrating the ones we have to work in the same way. That's not about doing the same work with less resources, we need to rethink the work itself.
3. Ecumenical mission partnership moves up the agenda. The parish system is creaking at the seams, and in many places exists more on paper than in reality. If these projections are even half true, many areas will be transformed over the next 20 years. Ancient parish boundaries will bear less and less relationship with reality, and without a serious effort at church planting, the parish system itself will cease to mean anything.
We can be committed to neighbourhood churches without having to run them all ourselves. In nearby Weston-super-Mare, different neighbourhoods in new estates are served by a mixture of churches, not all of them Anglican. Here in Bath and Wells we've just appointed an Ecumenical Mission Enabler (had a good chat earlier this week), and the whole ecumenical agenda itself needs to focus more on collaborative mission.
4. Dioceses will need some kind of church planting strategy for new estates, and to take time to resource local church leaders who are trying to engage with new communities on the ground.
A local picture.
We have a local situation with a 4-parish benefice, 4 village churches, but where more than half the population is in an urban area on the edge of Yeovil, mostly built in the last 20 years. This neighbourhood doesn't have an accessible, local parish church, even though it falls into 3 (rural) parishes. The parish system hasn't kept up with real people and real lives, but whenever you talk, about moving boundaries people mutter darkly about how long it will take and what a faff it will be. Within current structures, with so much new housing planned, that is a picture of the future for more and more people.
If we are committed to the parish system, then we have to find a way to reform it so that it keeps on working.
and finally... presently, nobody is building anything. You can plan all you like, but at the moment neither developers, nor government, can actually afford the houses we need right now, never mind the houses of the future....
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Last chance....
...if you live or work in South Somerset, to comment on the District Council vision of where the area goes in the next 20 years. There are now getting on for 130 responses, with various housing and leisure companies pitching in during the last few days.
The consultation closes on May 30th, having been extended by 6 weeks from the original deadline. Over half the comments have come since the deadline was extended. If you want to comment, I've done a short article explaining the thing here, and a longer summary of the full Core Strategy document here, as you'll be quite pushed between now and 5pm tomorrow to read the whole thing. However, if you are going to comment on part of it, read that part in first on the consultation website. If comments don't actually relate to the questions, or don't have any clear reasoning behind them, then they're less likely to be taken on board,
The consultation closes on May 30th, having been extended by 6 weeks from the original deadline. Over half the comments have come since the deadline was extended. If you want to comment, I've done a short article explaining the thing here, and a longer summary of the full Core Strategy document here, as you'll be quite pushed between now and 5pm tomorrow to read the whole thing. However, if you are going to comment on part of it, read that part in first on the consultation website. If comments don't actually relate to the questions, or don't have any clear reasoning behind them, then they're less likely to be taken on board,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)