5 September 2017 – SERCLE & SPC submissions to Reg:18 of UDC local plan

DocP 5th September 2017

The Stebbing Parish Council’s Submission prepared by professional planners JB Planning Associates is now available to view here
SPC-reg18

SERCLE’s own submission in the form of comments is also available to view here
SERCLE-Reg18

Sercle shared Stebbing Neighbourhood Plan's post.

2 months ago

Please see our web site at www.stebbingneighbourhoodplan.co.uk to see Stebbing Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group's response to the UDC Local Plan (Reg 19), particularly relating to the proposed West of Braintree Garden Community. ...

Photo

View on Facebook

Sercle shared CAUSE Campaign Against Urban Sprawl in Essex's post.

3 months ago

This: ...

CAUSE Campaign Against Urban Sprawl in Essex

Sadly, last night's meeting of Full Council at Braintree shows that once again we are lacking a sensible and analytical debate. Here are some myths debunked:

MYTH 1: WITHOUT GARDEN TOWNS ALL THE VILLAGES WOULD BE SWAMPED.
RESPONSE: 3.5 HOMES PER VILLAGE PER ANNUM IS NOT A SWAMPING.
The suggestion is frequently made to CAUSE that if the homes allocated to garden communities had to be allocated to all the villages then we would see massive sprawl.

In fact, there is only a need to plan as far as 2033 and in this time only 7,500 homes have been allocated to the three previous garden communities.

IF those were spread around equally to every single town and village in north Essex it would only mean 3.5 homes per settlement per year. Clearly in reality, no plan would take this approach.

MYTH 2: GARDEN COMMUNITIES PREVENT SPRAWL
RESPONSE: GARDEN COMMUNITIES EAT UP LAND
Garden communities, at densities of c30 homes per hectare, eat up the countryside in an inefficient way, creating car-dependent suburbia. There are many ways of creating higher density urban developments which allow for plenty of green space and also encourage walking/cycling and public transport. Here's an excellent, brief presentation: www.sustainablesuburbia.co.uk/webpages/Presentation11.html I'll do a separate post on this. It hasn't even been discussed over three years of plan-making and it needs to be analysed this time round.

MYTH 3: CAUSE THINKS THAT BUILDING ON FARMSTEADS IS THE BROWNFIELD SOLUTION.
RESPONSE: ONCE AGAIN THEY HAVEN'T READ OUR ANALYSIS
We have looked at the brownfield lists (now formal registers since legislation changed) of Braintree and Colchester and there is much more that they could do to prioritise brownfield. We're not silly enough to believe that it will prevent greenfield land being needed but it seems logical to use brownfield when it is possible and suitable. Farmsteads do offer the prospect of some housing, too.

MYTH 4: WE ARE TELLING PEOPLE THAT 42,000 HOMES WILL ALL BE BUILT AT ONCE
RESPONSE: FOR GOODNESS SAKE!
Fact, the councils are trying to build three new garden towns simultaneously. But really, who would genuinely think that 42,000 homes would come all at once. And really, what is the point of reassuring us they won't all happen for 50 years? It doesn't matter how long they take if they are in the wrong place or if infrastructure can't be provided or if there isn't any money and we'll all be in debt for years to come.

MYTH 5: PEOPLE (PROBABLY AIMED AT CAUSE....) WHO OPPOSE GARDEN COMMUNITIES MUST PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS & HOMELESSNESS
RESPONSE: REMINDER THAT CAUSE CONSISTS OF UNPAID VOLUNTEERS, NOT PLANNERS AND POLITICIANS. We have always argued that affordability should be prioritised. Always happy to share our thoughts if asked. Which we're not. This brings us to myth 6, on a similar theme.

MYTH 6: GARDEN COMMUNITIES ARE THE SOLUTION TO HOMELESSNESS AND AFFORABILITY
RESPONSE: NO.
The inspector noted that there is no evidence that the GC's can provide affordable homes.

MYTH 7: GC'S ARE THE ONLY WAY TO GET INFRASTRUCTURE
RESPONSE: NICE THEORY BUT TESTED AND FOUND LACKING.
The GC's have been shown not to be viable and government is not queueing at our door with the £bns (yes £billions) required.

If the councils had implemented a Community Infrastructure Levy on the basis of a report for Colchester, then it would have been possible to collect £14,000 extra developer contribution per new home since 2010. Do the maths.

There are some exemptions eg self build, social housing, but this is money we are missing out on for the vast majority of new build houses we see being built)

View on Facebook

5 September 2017 – SERCLE & SPC submissions to Reg:18 of UDC local plan

The Stebbing Parish Council’s Submission prepared by professional planners JB Planning Associates is now available to view here SPC-reg18

SERCLE’s own submission in the form of comments is also available to view here SERCLE-Reg18

Related Posts

The Stebbing Parish Council’s Submission prepared by professional planners JB Planning Associates is now available to view here
SPC-reg18

SERCLE’s own submission in the form of comments is also available to view here
SERCLE-Reg18