District Councillor Keith Hudson has just made an ‘urgent decision’ under the powers he’s been given.
It’s not on the council website yet but we will link to it when we can. (the report and decision are 10 pages long)
Basildon Borough Council have now prepared their own Core Strategy for future housing and Cllr Keith Hudson has made the decision to object to it, for important reasons:
“Rochford District Council has serious concerns as to the impact that these policies will have on Rochford District and the Thames Gateway….”
Whats happening here? Well, Basildon Borough has come up with an option for housing that says Basildon will focus on building in existing urban areas and not allow any use of its Green Belt. As a result of this Basildon will only provide 6500 dwellings. Basildon acknowledge that this will fall short of its predicted future demand. To quote their strategy document:
“Although this is less than the Borough’s natural increase, it means that the Green Belt can continue to be afforded the highest protection with no land releases for development”
This is a very different situation to Rochford. Our council has tried to meet housing demand, and sacrificed some Green Belt for development out of fear that if they didn’t, developers would wreak havoc by picking their own greenfield sites and getting permission from a government inspector.
The concern for Rochford District is this – the government’s “National Planning Policy Framework” says that councils will be required to meet neighbouring authorities unmet housing needs “where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development”.
If Basildon are right, and they are able to protect their Green Belt, then Rochford will have allowed development on our Green Belt unnecessarily. The District Council would have a lot of explaining to do.
If Basildon are wrong, then developers might zoom in on Green Belt sites in Basildon, but possibly also in our district too…..
There is too much political capital for the present leadership of Basildon BC at stake, following making such grand statements about the untouchability of Green Belt during the Dale Farm farce.
I don’t doubt, though, that its effects will affect others, elsewhere.
But then again, I find the whole ‘defence of the Green Belt’- thing to be nonsense for the most part. Speaking as an environmentalist, I suspect the whole system provides for bad excuses and perverse incentives.
I think you are being unfair to the district council there. We might not want development on our green belt, I know I do not. But surely we have a duty to provide houses that match our population growth. I have heard more than one Conservative argue this in council meetings, so if I see them backtrack I will not be happy.
Rob, I think we may end up with the proposed Rochford figures plus quite a bit extra from ‘windfall’ sites such as eON in London Road Rayleigh.
Which, if approved would be 100+ houses but NOT count towards the “Land North of London Road” figure.
But that would not have been something forseeable for our district council? There is perhaps an argument for better regional collaboration with councils in the first instance. Obviously us having to cater for other council’s selfishness is not on.
Cllr Seagers statement of open season for developers if we don’t just fall in line with what the government wants is just nonsense. In MY opinion our local government have lost their backbone and will bow to whatever they are told and will not support what the majority of the local electorate want.
Rob, I hope you won’t be offended or shocked, but that appears to be two posts we can largely agree on, although return to the regional East of England approach I would vehemently oppose.
I suspect there will be quite good odds offered against Basildon’s Core Strategy being approved by the Inspectorate. As I understand it, amongst other reasons, it fails on the point under discussion i.e. what reasonable argument can it give for failing to provide the housing land to fulfil its own needs, that its own Green Belt is more important than neighbouring councils’ which are already having to utilise some of theirs? I think not.
You are quite right in saying that more than one Conservative Member (rather more than a few indeed) has spoken and written publicly in support of providing the necessary housing allocations for roofs over the heads of our District’s ‘hidden households’ and those households yet to be formed by RDC residents’ children and grandchildren. I would advise you not to accept anything less than 100-1 against this one backtracking on that.
Rob
There has been regional collaboration in the sense that the SHMA (Strategic Housing Market Assessment), on which the figures for Rochford are based, is a joint assessment with Southend, Castle Point, Basildon and Thurrock as well as Rochford.
There is an argument that the figures for Rochford are already inflated because they include housing for other districts.
So as you can see collaboration doesn’t always work. Perhaps self interest always comes to the fore.
Mike Nobes
Am I to understand that, in your opinion, the majority of RDC residents would prefer to risk having either several times the number of new homes required of this District and accepted under its Core Strategy, or alternatively somehow having none for the homeless and future homeless?
I would far rather back the knowledge and judgement of the experienced RDC Officers and Councillor Keith Hudson, our PFH for Planning & Transportation, thank you.
Sadly for some Planning Authorities without an adopted Core Strategy in place, it will very likely be a case for some in this District having to ‘Watch and Learn’ from those other authorities’ pain later this year.
Cllr. YOU talk about the homeless and the future homeless.This is brilliant publicity, however what do you base this estimate on.The ability of future homebuyers is based on the sale price and the ability to pay the mortgage. The average price of of a 3 bedroom house in Rayleigh is more than the average local resident can afford. Is the council going to make up the difference. I now live outside of RDC however I keep a kKEEN INTEREST in Rayleigh.
There is a much more fundamental question that nobody want’s to answer. The population growth needs to be addressed. Or, as I suspect, it’s other people that are the problem, nothing to do with me……..
As in previous posts,the proposed housing development in Rayleigh will do no good for the local residents, no good at all. I talk as a former resident who fell in ‘love ‘with the town when I moved there. The proposed development will put an intolerable weight on the infrastructure of the town. It is easy for Cllr’s to put a positive slant on this volume of housing but when push comes to shove, who are they looking after???
Mike Nobes
Under RDC Core Strategy, as a part of any major planning permission of 15 or more dwellings, developers can be required to provide up to 35% of dwellings as affordable housing i.e. social rented etc. There is no cost to be funded by RDC but it would be able to nominate priority tenants from those on its housing list.
The economic principles of low supply and high demand would otherwise simply ensure that, if no more or an inadequate number of homes were built, then the inreasing population would simply drive property prices and the resulting rentals ever higher. Those higher rentals would in many cases then require greater subsidy by the UK tax payer.
As a memeber of the ‘Wickford Action Group’ I can tell you Basildon’s local plan is over 10 years out of date and so there are lots of pockets of land that are green fields but not green belt, two of these are Dry Street in Basildon by the Hospital and Land north of Station Avenue, Wickford. Our concern is that these area’s are built and Basildon continue to tell the elctorate they are protecting the green belt! As we know Green Belt and Green Fields are not the same thing!!
There are still lots of brownfield sites around that should be considered first. These appear not to be considered in any great detail. I still return to the subject of infrastructure. To build large amounts of dwellings without due regard for even the basic infrastructure enhancements is madness and it will come back to bite the District Council in years to come. A recent report has stated that many of the new builds are so small that there is no room to store even the basics, like a hoover. Is this the way the developers will make their money? Building matchbox houses at inflated prices. I look forward to evidencing the type of dwellings and their pricing structure and how the infrastructure will cope with the inflow of people and their cars.
Is anybody ever going make the connection between over development and uncontrolled population growth. Is it, as I suspect, a far too hot potato for any of the political parties. I notice that a few of the main protagonists on this site are very silent….a point too close to home?
In the national and regional context, population growth and net immigration is obviously going to have an impact. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15461579
In the Rochford District context, it’s less obvious. The annual amount of new housing proposed for our district isn’t particularly high (it’s the choice of locations where I have personally have issues.) We do need a certain amount of housing for people who have grown up in our district.
Mike, I know what you mean about shoe-boxes. At least last September we managed to increase the minimum size of studio flats:
(and the sub-committee included Colin Seagers, thanks for your support on this Colin)
Mike Nobes
In fact there are very few brown field sites of any significance (i.e. each capable of 50+ homes) known to be still available in Rochford District, so if you know of some we have missed we would all be delighted to hear of them. Additionally, even if many small brownfield sites were available, they would not qualify to generate the affordable homes (=social rented or shared ownership etc.), which can only be required to provide 35% of such homes on sites with 15 or more dwellings. Nor could any Section 106 agreements on sites smaller than 15 dwellings generate significant funds for new infrastructure, even when many in total.
Thus I refer you back to RDC being required to ensure the building of the 250 p.a. homes stated in the adopted Core Strategy or else, via the ‘planning by appeal process’, RDC residents would receive very many more homes built virtually anywhere of rogue developers’ choosing but with no Section 106 monies (lost on the successful appeal, even if previously offered) whatsoever for infrastructure. That would be the worst of all worlds.
As for sizes and standards for new homes, the various requirements are laid down as minimum standards, varying by numbers of bedrooms in each dwelling for space, amenity space and parking spaces etc. included in the Core Strategy, and are generally very strictly adhered to as absolute minimums by Members when considering planning applications.
Mmmm – complete and utter avoidance of the question by some people….what a surprise.
Chris, the report I refer to was an independent report and was on Radio 5Live earlier this week. The report specifically gave examples of where the storage room was so bad there was nowhere to store even a vacuum cleaner. This is fact. If the problem of overdevelopment is not the local councils then it is the Governments, SO if we have no push back from the District council we have to conclude that they agree with the Governments strategy.
On another subject, I do agree with Rayleigh Resident. We have taken more than our fair share of immigrants and Asylum seekers who together with the EU impose more than we can manage especially with our generous benefits system. However the Tories again have no answer!
Oh Mike, I’m in agreement with you on the size of new homes, and I’m aware of the report you refer to. For anyone who’s missed it, The Guardian has an article about it here ,
If I remember correctly, at the meeting where I got the minimum size of studio flats increased, I wanted to go further , but was told it wasn’t viable because housing associations weren’t allowed to build flats above a certain size.
If you build decent-sized quality flats, people might be keener to live in them than houses, and you might even get more homes per hectare without compromising quality of life. I’d also like to see homes sold with their floor area highlighted, as well as number of bedrooms.
There’s another Guardian article on the issue here, and the comments left there get into the immigration issue as well.
Thanks Chris, thought I was losing my mind at one point. This issue is far wider than just overdevelopment,immigration and why local councils are not standing up for their residents. Shame really because there is a fine line between local and national governance and I am losing track on who is actually looking after us.
Mike, at least you have responded but you, and certain others, have failed completely to address the issue. If your bath was overflowing what would you do – put more towels on the floor or turn off the tap ? Nothing to do immigration, more to do with people having too many kids and then, a few years later, moaning about too many houses / cars / crowds etc…..
There are some matters within District Councillors’ duty and power to address and many things which are definitely NOT in their duty or power to address, such being both our UK and EU immigration policies and control of natural population growth. Until those immigration influxes are addressed in a more balanced way they will compound any natural growth in the existing UK population and result in an almost insatiable growth in demand for new housing in this crowded nation. Planning authorities like RDC are REQUIRED to address that for their area via Core Strategy commitments; or else lose that protection and face the consequences of resulting uncontrolled development via the ‘planning by appeal’ process, to which I have so frequently referred previously.
There undoubtedly has also long been a world over-population problem developing which must be addressed if the finite natural resources needed for the ever improving living standards demanded by and/or for all nations and peoples are to be managed sustainably. That will require international co-operation on a level heretofore never even generally contemplated let alone achieved, and therefore rather beyond the District’s and this website’s remit, unless (tongue firmly in cheek!) a new local byelaw along the lines of the alleged Chinese ‘only one child per couple rule’ is envisaged, valid and somehow enforceable?? THAT policy is certainly way too hot for me and I suspect for most others currently, anyone fancy pushing it through and enforcing it?
What can I say…..
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/parents-shoulder-bills-40-old-kids-122405249–finance.html
Colin, the Chinese one child rule is not alleged, it is in force as I write this. If a couple find that are expecting a second child they have two choices, the first is pretty obvious but if they proceed and have the child they are then ” blacklisted ” . They lose all benefits , pensions , jobs and effectively have to live outside the system. This is a pretty powerful incentive to comply. I know this to be true as I recently visited the country.