Friday, 16 December 2011

Thousands of houses planned are due to lack of opposition

The council appear to be making moves to build thousands of house. It's another example who a lack of an opposition has led to too much power to the current Conservative group. You only have yourselves to blame because if the people of Bracknell, Crowthorne and Sandhurst continue to vote for the same councillors from the same party then this is the result. The council can push though whatever plans they want.

 

If you wish to  halt or even reduce the number of houses being planned in our area then perhaps you should join the Northern Arc Action Group http://www.narcag.co.uk/ and sign their petition.

7 comments:

  1. Where does Philip Lee stand on these plans? Who will buy all of these houses? Wouldn't it make more sense to regenerate the town centre into a place where people would actually go out in the evening. At the moment the town is not that attractive, the centre is soulless and according the paper, the council seems set to largely ignore underused browned sites and build on a lot of greenfield sites. The council suggestion that we can pick an open space to be protected with a covenant is a bit sick. One thing Bracknell has going for it is the park and leisure spaces but these seem to all be up for grabs if the council is only willing to commit to protecting one. Hint to the councillors and planners, check out Jennetts park, most of the homes have virtually no garden and there are cars parked everywhere, the housing is too dense for families with multiple cars. Now apply this to new estates planned out of town and cut back the number of houses planned there. Also see how slowly the Jennetts park development has happened. If the councillors want more housing they should mix up the schemes and consider some higher density housing closer to good transport links in the centre. As long as the town centre stays looking the way it does, these houses could not all be sold, because the demand isn't there at the prices developers will be willing to depletion for.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you check the press? You will see there that the decision divided the council’s
    Conservative party, with six councilors voting against the plan. http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2104754_row_over_goahead_for_thousands_of_homes

    Don’t forget there is also http://www.cvag.org.uk/ -
    The Crowthorne Village Action Group.
    To pick up on some of the other points by Anonymous,
    BFC does not have a 5 year land supply which is a legal requirement. It has not been changed or
    abandoned by the new government.
    The current plans seek to address this.

    The council could look to a making a new forecast of growth, but is limited to using the same
    government figures. If the figures change this could mean starting the process all over again,
    leaving the borough open to random applications.

    No Council would be allowed to set a zero delivery number. The government has clearly indicated
    that it is encouraging house building and will review any revalidated numbers in detail and where
    necessary will revise.

    Without a land supply identified by the council a developer has a significantly increased chance
    of getting an approval on a site of their choice (anywhere in the borough).
    If the council do not have sites identified the council would be exposing the borough to the
    threat of unplanned and inappropriate development.

    As at this time the house building market is depressed and banks are slow to lend. If this was not
    so, we would probably be experiencing random applications now.
    The other reason developers are very active that they paid for rights and land at the top of the
    market and some sites are not yet viable to them.
     
    There is also the National Planning Policy Framework to consider.
    It requires councils to work closely with businesses and communities to plan positively for the
    needs of each area. And it makes clear that where plans are not in place or up-to-date,
    development should be allowed unless this would compromise the key principles for
    sustainability. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/draftframeworksummary

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/18/national-trust-rspb-planning-laws?newsfeed=true



    The draft policy asks Councils to identify additional ‘deliverable’ sites for housing
    as part of their five year supply of deliverable sites. The proposal is for this to be a minimum
    additional 20% of the five year supply to be added to the five year land supply.
    http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/advice_for_inspectors/nppf_consult.pdf


    The Localism Bill also introduces new factors – it also talks of local plans – but
    meanwhile there is a gap that developers could take advantage of and said above.
    http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/localismplainenglishguide
     
    We are told that the government planning inspectors are already working to parts of the new
    system, even though not law yet. (Giving “weight” to it).
    Take a look at the following example – - (Cont...)

    ReplyDelete
  3. (... Cont Example)

    http://planlive.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage


    and

    http://democratic.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/Published/C00000585/M00004107/AI00027848/$051100611OUTlandatJunctionForestRoadandFoxleyLaneBinfield.docA.ps.pdf


    What policies should the committee look to?
    There are “weightings to be considered”.
    Try looking at this previous advice:
    http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147396.pdf

    And some stuff from Wandsworth on weight.
    http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/info/200074/planning/233/1_guide_to_planning_policy/2


    Bracknell Town Centre is the first priority for the location of new development being the most
    accessible and sustainable location in the Borough.  This reflects planning guidance at all levels
    and in particular the Council's Locational Principles in Core Strategy Policy CS2.
    http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/spae/proposals/ldf/text01.htm#pol_cs2
     
    Policy CS2 – Locational Principles
    The Council will allocate land for development in the sequence set out below:

    ♦ Bracknell Town Centre;
    ♦ Previously developed land and buildings in defined Settlements;
    ♦ Other land within defined Settlements where this does not conflict with other policies;
    ♦ Extensions to defined settlements with good public transport links to the rest of the urban area or with firm proposals to provide such links.

    Development will be permitted within defined Settlements and on Allocated Sites. Development
    will be permitted which is consistent with the character, accessibility and provisions of
    infrastructure and services within that settlement.
     
    The Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD) is out for a six-week consultation in
    January on its "soundness" - whether it is sufficiently evidence-based and the best option - and
    afterwards it will be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination by an independent
    inspector. http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/sadpd
     
    This is perhaps split between Phillip Lee and Adam Afriyie.
    http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2101873_campaigners_may_block_blue_mountain_housing_plans_ Phillip Lee might though concern himself more with the CVAG http://www.cvag.org.uk/ as this is in his constituency.
     
    Sorry about all the technical detail, but it is hard to avoid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alvin, 10,000 houses represents what - an potential population increase of say, 15-20%, maybe more if many of the houses are estate houses? Leaving aside Government quotas and rules etc, do you personally think that the infrastructure of the town will cope with that kind of growth?

    By the way - all credit to you for posting on here...

    With the council so heavily dominated by one party, do you personally feel like the councillors are that concerned about their chances of getting re-elected if they approve plans that might be controversial?

    Do you think that the local press does a good job of scrutinizing the decisions of the council?

    ReplyDelete
  5. By the way Alvin - all credit to you for commenting on here...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Population projections predict that the population of the Borough in 2026 will be 130,600 compared with 114,000 in 2008.
    This increase is as a result of:

    Natural change: This figure comprises the difference between the number of births and deaths each year (between 1500-1600 births and 700-800 deaths each year).The ongoing pattern of more births than deaths is expected to result in an increase in the population of the Borough by some 800 persons per year.

    Net migration: This is the overall increase or decrease in the population of the Borough as a result of internal (within England), cross border (between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and international (UK and abroad) migration. This is expected to add to the population of the Borough by 100-200 persons per year.


    ONS
    Stats
    Getbracknell
    Appendix D Submissiion

    There will have to be improvements to the infrastructure and the infrastructure delivery plan can be found at: Site Allocatins
    There is more about infrastructure at: Responses

    Everyone has been elected to make decisions on behalf of the people of the Borough. Come the time of the ballot box the residents can decide if they wish to re-elect the same people. One does listen to the concerns of the residents in ones own ward, but one is also trying to do the best for the Borough, and act according to the law.

    The press often concentrates on issues that it thinks the public want to hear about. There is a huge amount of work that goes on within the Borough /Parish/ Town Councils that goes unrecognised.
    The Borough provides email alerts about decisions that have to be made. Sign up at:
    http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/your-council/yc-decision-making.htm

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Alvin and anonymous this was a very interesting commenting

    ReplyDelete