South Somerset District Council has just agreed an £8m discount package to a housing developer, so that a local housing site can be rendered 'viable'. The alternative is that it gets mothballed (that's the claim anyway: Barratts tried that one a couple of years ago on the other side of town then declared record profits the week after the agreement was signed). So that's less social housing, poorer maintenance for community play and open space, less money for community facilities, bus routes, etc. More houses, shabbier environment.
I'm pretty disappointed and annoyed by this, especially as the viability maths was badly skewed (I'll explain if you like but it would take a while).
But I'm just as disappointed and annoyed by this. Scroll to page 4. Only one local resident wrote in to complain. One. There's been plenty of sound and fury on Facebook, of course. And a local politician who's hoping to unseat David Laws as MP next year has been in the papers opposing it. But I note that nobody from his party actually wrote in.
This is potentially a new community of 1500-1700 people. There is a massive social housing shortage in the area. And nobody cares enough to formally speak up. (Note: putting :-( at on a Facebook comment doesn't qualify as 'caring'. That wont fix the swings, provide a bus route, or house a family.)
Someone I meet up with for prayer has a saying 'you've gotta love 'em'. Even on the days when Yeovil makes me sad and angry, I've gotta love em. Drat, it would be so much easier not to, but I don't think Jesus gives us any wiggle room on that.
Showing posts with label South Somerset. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Somerset. Show all posts
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Monday, January 06, 2014
South Somerset Local Plan - Last few days of consultation
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Poverty, House and Home
Nationally, Save the Children have just launched their first appeal to support UK children in poverty, with 3.5m and rising believed to be below the poverty line. And there's plenty more to come, the following has just come through from South Somerset District Council - government grants towards Council Tax are being reduced, and our area is losing £1.3m. This is on top of a whole swathe of other benefit cuts coming down the line, on housing benefit, rent levels etc.
The council is consulting on how to apply the cuts (see below), but I can't help thinking we'll be back here again next year, with more cuts to apply. Thousands of local households have already been hit with reductinos to housing allowance.
At the same time government is trying to use the housing benefit system to reshuffle occupancy: some social housing is overcrowded, whilst other tenants have more bedrooms than they need. So, just swap them over? Easy, except that you're turfing out someone who's lived there for decades from a house full of memories, or taking away the guest room kept by an elderly tenant which is regularly used by family members. It's a pretty impossible circle to square, and there doesn't seem to be a painless way to do it.
The Government is ending the current national Council Tax Benefit scheme and all Council's have to replace it with their own local Council Tax support scheme.
Council Tax Benefit helps people with low income to pay their Council Tax.
New local schemes will start on 1 April 2013. To make sure it suits our communities, South Somerset District Council is consulting with residents on proposals for our local scheme.
The Government is reducing funding by at least 10%. For South Somerset residents this means we will receive approximately £1.3 million less than we do currently. The cost to the Council will increase further if the number of people claiming support goes up more than we expect or if Council Tax increases in future years.
This shortage in funding means we have to make some difficult decisions about who gets financial support, and how much they receive.
Council Tax helps pay for the full range of local authority services including child protection, support for children with disabilities, adult social care, roads and pavements, waste and recycling, trading standards, enforcement of environmental crime, noise nuisance, policing and fire fighting etc. Over a third of council funding comes from Council Tax.
Will the new local scheme affect me?
Households that receive Council Tax Benefit where the applicant or partner is of State Pension Credit Age -Your benefit will not be affected.
In the case of couples, where one is of pension credit age and one is of working age and in receipt of Income Support, Income Based Jobseekers Allowance or Income Related Employment and Support Allowance - You will receive less help with your Council Tax under the proposed new local scheme.
Households of working age that receive Council Tax Benefit -You will receive less help with your Council Tax under the proposed new local scheme.
What if the new local scheme doesn't find the £1.3 million savings needed?
The local scheme proposals if all agreed will cover the £1.3 million cut imposed by the Government. If they are not each local authority can do some or all of the following:
Introduce some of the proposals
Increase Council Tax
Cut the level and range of local services
Our new local scheme proposal
South Somerset's proposed local Council Tax support scheme for working age households has been produced using the following principles and the rules of the current Council Tax Benefit scheme. We believe that any reductions in the level of support should be proportionate and remove unfairness in the current Council Tax Benefit scheme:-
Principle 1 - Everyone should contribute something towards the cost of local services through Council Tax
We believe all working age people should pay something towards their Council Tax
Principle 2 - All income should be included to ensure the scheme is fair
We will include all income except Disability Living Allowance, War Widows and War Disablement Pensions
Principle 3 - Greater account should be taken of the total income of a household
We will consider every adult's income to calculate Council Tax support
Principle 4 - Provide incentives to encourage people to work
We will support and encourage people to work by ignoring more of the money they earn
Principle 5 - It should provide protection for the vulnerable
We will continue to ignore Disability Living Allowance, War Widows and War Disablement Pensions and include a hardship scheme
Principle 6 - The scheme should not penalise those that have already saved for the future
We have decided not to change the current Council Tax Benefit rules regarding savings and capital
In our consultation questionnaire we have set out our proposals that show the areas where the proposed new scheme forworking age households is different to the current Council Tax Benefit scheme.
For each proposal there is an example to help you see what the change would mean. Some or all of the proposals may be in the new scheme so more than one proposal may affect you. At the end of the proposals there is an example to help you see what a combination of those proposals could mean.
Your say on the proposals will help us decide on the final scheme design. It is important that all of you have the chance to give us your views and opinions on the possible ways to manage the funding cuts. This will help us plan council spending for next year (2013/14).
Everyone currently in receipt of Council Tax Benefit on 31 March 2013 will have their Council Tax support calculated using the information we already hold.
http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/benefitsconsultation
The council is consulting on how to apply the cuts (see below), but I can't help thinking we'll be back here again next year, with more cuts to apply. Thousands of local households have already been hit with reductinos to housing allowance.
At the same time government is trying to use the housing benefit system to reshuffle occupancy: some social housing is overcrowded, whilst other tenants have more bedrooms than they need. So, just swap them over? Easy, except that you're turfing out someone who's lived there for decades from a house full of memories, or taking away the guest room kept by an elderly tenant which is regularly used by family members. It's a pretty impossible circle to square, and there doesn't seem to be a painless way to do it.
The Government is ending the current national Council Tax Benefit scheme and all Council's have to replace it with their own local Council Tax support scheme.
Council Tax Benefit helps people with low income to pay their Council Tax.
New local schemes will start on 1 April 2013. To make sure it suits our communities, South Somerset District Council is consulting with residents on proposals for our local scheme.
The Government is reducing funding by at least 10%. For South Somerset residents this means we will receive approximately £1.3 million less than we do currently. The cost to the Council will increase further if the number of people claiming support goes up more than we expect or if Council Tax increases in future years.
This shortage in funding means we have to make some difficult decisions about who gets financial support, and how much they receive.
Council Tax helps pay for the full range of local authority services including child protection, support for children with disabilities, adult social care, roads and pavements, waste and recycling, trading standards, enforcement of environmental crime, noise nuisance, policing and fire fighting etc. Over a third of council funding comes from Council Tax.
Will the new local scheme affect me?
Households that receive Council Tax Benefit where the applicant or partner is of State Pension Credit Age -Your benefit will not be affected.
In the case of couples, where one is of pension credit age and one is of working age and in receipt of Income Support, Income Based Jobseekers Allowance or Income Related Employment and Support Allowance - You will receive less help with your Council Tax under the proposed new local scheme.
Households of working age that receive Council Tax Benefit -You will receive less help with your Council Tax under the proposed new local scheme.
What if the new local scheme doesn't find the £1.3 million savings needed?
The local scheme proposals if all agreed will cover the £1.3 million cut imposed by the Government. If they are not each local authority can do some or all of the following:
Introduce some of the proposals
Increase Council Tax
Cut the level and range of local services
Our new local scheme proposal
South Somerset's proposed local Council Tax support scheme for working age households has been produced using the following principles and the rules of the current Council Tax Benefit scheme. We believe that any reductions in the level of support should be proportionate and remove unfairness in the current Council Tax Benefit scheme:-
Principle 1 - Everyone should contribute something towards the cost of local services through Council Tax
We believe all working age people should pay something towards their Council Tax
Principle 2 - All income should be included to ensure the scheme is fair
We will include all income except Disability Living Allowance, War Widows and War Disablement Pensions
Principle 3 - Greater account should be taken of the total income of a household
We will consider every adult's income to calculate Council Tax support
Principle 4 - Provide incentives to encourage people to work
We will support and encourage people to work by ignoring more of the money they earn
Principle 5 - It should provide protection for the vulnerable
We will continue to ignore Disability Living Allowance, War Widows and War Disablement Pensions and include a hardship scheme
Principle 6 - The scheme should not penalise those that have already saved for the future
We have decided not to change the current Council Tax Benefit rules regarding savings and capital
In our consultation questionnaire we have set out our proposals that show the areas where the proposed new scheme forworking age households is different to the current Council Tax Benefit scheme.
For each proposal there is an example to help you see what the change would mean. Some or all of the proposals may be in the new scheme so more than one proposal may affect you. At the end of the proposals there is an example to help you see what a combination of those proposals could mean.
Your say on the proposals will help us decide on the final scheme design. It is important that all of you have the chance to give us your views and opinions on the possible ways to manage the funding cuts. This will help us plan council spending for next year (2013/14).
Everyone currently in receipt of Council Tax Benefit on 31 March 2013 will have their Council Tax support calculated using the information we already hold.
http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/benefitsconsultation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)