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 new housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new housing. 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.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Mission to new housing areas: what works?
...a question I'm very interested in, given that it's a major thread of my work here in Yeovil. The Church of Englands new 'Church Growth Research' unit has commissioned a piece of work to evaluate the CofE's engagement with new housing areas in recent years, particularly in the 14 Dioceses which have received national funding to support mission work in new developments.
Some of the key factors in the evaluation include:
looks like a helpful piece of work, and I'm delighted to hear that it'll be reporting back in March 2014, a lightening-fast timescale for the CofE.
Some of the key factors in the evaluation include:
- The extent and effectiveness of support and training provided by dioceses for the local projects/posts being funded;
- Whether any common factors are emerging which are contributing to (or hindering) the success of pioneer and other outreach posts(e.g. supporting team in place; links to parish church, being resident on or near the new development s/he is serving; access to community facilities; access to facilities for worship; length of term of appointment for post-holders);
- Whether and how community engagement initiatives through the projects/post-holders being funded are translating into new Christian disciples;
looks like a helpful piece of work, and I'm delighted to hear that it'll be reporting back in March 2014, a lightening-fast timescale for the CofE.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Housing Developers Stop You Being Christian
Yesterday the Royal Institute of British Architects produced the 2nd frightening report in 2 days, following the Unicef study on UK children. They found that new homes in Britain are the smallest in Europe, with many below the recommended size for the number of people they claim to house.
some of the figures:
58% of new home buyers in 2009 found there wasn't enough space for their furniture
70% said there wasn't enough room for their possessions (I can't believe they were all downsizing, but this might not actually be too bad, as most of us own more than our fair share of the worlds stuff.)
34% had no space to have friends over for dinner
48% had no space to entertain at all.
And that's just the inside. If you look at our main local housing development, there is one (very small) area of public green space, a triangle of grass enclosed by a brick wall. There are no front gardens, and many back gardens are about 4 metres square and on a 30 degree slope. Guess what? Since there's virtually no grass, and no space to store a mower, people are digging up the grass and replacing it with paving or stones. There's no space for the community to gather, and no plans for any community facilities, shops, or meeting places. Even plans for a school look shaky. What is taking shape is an arid sea of concrete, boxed in and soulless.
But what really struck me was that last stat above. Matthew 25, the famous parable of the sheep and the goats, has Jesus speaking about people taking a stranger into their homes, and feeding the hungry. In roughly half the homes now being built, that is impossible. Our developers have designed away the possibility for families to sit together around a meal table by eliminating dining space from housing plans, and now they are making it impossible to show any kind of hospitality. That's a great way to increase isolation, and to erode a basic human grace.
"And the King will say to them 'I was a stranger, and you created homes so small that people had no space to invite me in to'."
Update: in totally unrelated news, Barratts has reported a rise in profits.
some of the figures:
58% of new home buyers in 2009 found there wasn't enough space for their furniture
70% said there wasn't enough room for their possessions (I can't believe they were all downsizing, but this might not actually be too bad, as most of us own more than our fair share of the worlds stuff.)
34% had no space to have friends over for dinner
48% had no space to entertain at all.
And that's just the inside. If you look at our main local housing development, there is one (very small) area of public green space, a triangle of grass enclosed by a brick wall. There are no front gardens, and many back gardens are about 4 metres square and on a 30 degree slope. Guess what? Since there's virtually no grass, and no space to store a mower, people are digging up the grass and replacing it with paving or stones. There's no space for the community to gather, and no plans for any community facilities, shops, or meeting places. Even plans for a school look shaky. What is taking shape is an arid sea of concrete, boxed in and soulless.
But what really struck me was that last stat above. Matthew 25, the famous parable of the sheep and the goats, has Jesus speaking about people taking a stranger into their homes, and feeding the hungry. In roughly half the homes now being built, that is impossible. Our developers have designed away the possibility for families to sit together around a meal table by eliminating dining space from housing plans, and now they are making it impossible to show any kind of hospitality. That's a great way to increase isolation, and to erode a basic human grace.
"And the King will say to them 'I was a stranger, and you created homes so small that people had no space to invite me in to'."
Update: in totally unrelated news, Barratts has reported a rise in profits.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
So That's Where the Money Went
Local news a couple of days ago that nearly £1/2m is going on a new all-weather hockey pitch in Yeovil, courtesy of Barratts. This is part of the deal for a housing development on the E of the town (Wyndham Park) which Barratts are in charge of, which will see 700+ homes up in the next few years. The first 100 or so are already occupied, and we have a church community worker in one of the first houses on the estate getting to know the community and trying to bring people together.
I'm sure the new pitch will be well used, at least I hope so - Yeovil already has 2 decent all-weather surfaces at the football ground and Bucklers Mead, and several other good sports pitch locations (Johnson Park, Westlands, Mudford Rec. etc.). Meanwhile the community which has generated the funds, the new Wyndham Park development, will see what? Despite repeated lobbying, there are no plans for any community facilities on that estate beyond a small playground in one corner. No shops, no community meeting space. Of course there need to be facilities for the whole town, as well as for particular communities, but it's a bit galling to see so much cash being diverted away from that Wyndham Park, when we've been told repeatedly that the money/land isn't there for community provision. It's not the money that seems to be the problem, is it?
I'm sure the new pitch will be well used, at least I hope so - Yeovil already has 2 decent all-weather surfaces at the football ground and Bucklers Mead, and several other good sports pitch locations (Johnson Park, Westlands, Mudford Rec. etc.). Meanwhile the community which has generated the funds, the new Wyndham Park development, will see what? Despite repeated lobbying, there are no plans for any community facilities on that estate beyond a small playground in one corner. No shops, no community meeting space. Of course there need to be facilities for the whole town, as well as for particular communities, but it's a bit galling to see so much cash being diverted away from that Wyndham Park, when we've been told repeatedly that the money/land isn't there for community provision. It's not the money that seems to be the problem, is it?
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.
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....
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The Monmouth Hall Rebellion
Earlier this week a friend let me know that there would be a display about one of our new housing estates in the Monmouth Hall in Yeovil. It had been announced through an ad in last weeks Western Gazette (which I missed) a poster in the local shop (which had come down after a day), and a few leaflets to local houses.
With 8 hours notice, I scrambled along at 5pm to the Monmouth Hall, to see the grand designs that Barratts had for the Lyde Road estate. It was architects plans for the 700+ houses, and a chance for public feedback. Except that nobody had got the feedback forms out, thankfully someone spotted this and started to put them out on a table by the door. The other problem with the forms was that they had no return address, so that unless you filled them in on the day there was no way of getting them back to the developers. (but see below)
The plans themselves were, within the available parameters (flood plain on one side, existing housing development on another, and a cordon sanitaire to avoid methane poisoning from an old landfill site along the S border), reasonably good. But they looked incredibly crammed - one existing resident noticed that she'd have 6 gardens in the new properties bordering her own (average sized) garden. The architects themselved were 'surprised' that they'd not been asked to plan in for shops or any other community facilities, as this would be normal in an estate of this size. If enough people make the same point, they'd be open to putting some in.
Many of the folk there had only heard about it second hand, including some local parish councils, but there seemed to be a good turnout. The people I spoke to all seemed pretty unhappy with the designs, both how crammed they looked and the lack of shops and other public provision. The Riverside Park looked ok, but is down a steep slope, on land which is unsuitable for development, and the Section 106 agreement doesn't ask for the work to begin until 667 dwellings are occupied - i.e. the rest of the estate is finished. Only then will diggers and what not start driving through the newly built estate to the river at the back of it to start landscaping. Hmmmmm!
Just to compare, the Lufton development on the other side of Yeovil will have fewer houses, but the developers are aiming to provide a small cluster of retail units, and community meeting space as part of the school site. Lyde Road is 100 houses bigger, so it seems peculiar that it gets less facilities. Apart from the school gate, there will be nowhere to meet, it will be an incredibly lonely and isolated place to live unless a bit more thought is given to the plans.
If you went to the consultation and want to have your say, the postal address to contact is:
Hammonds Yates Ltd.
3 Harbour Crescent
Serbert Way
Portishead
BS20 7FT
Fao Steve Hawkins.
these are the architects, so they design the estate, but they don't control the parameters, so don't shoot them. Barrats the developers, are on 01392 423014, and the planning department at South Somerset District Council, who've overseen the development so far, can be contacted through the council switchboard on 01935 462462
With 8 hours notice, I scrambled along at 5pm to the Monmouth Hall, to see the grand designs that Barratts had for the Lyde Road estate. It was architects plans for the 700+ houses, and a chance for public feedback. Except that nobody had got the feedback forms out, thankfully someone spotted this and started to put them out on a table by the door. The other problem with the forms was that they had no return address, so that unless you filled them in on the day there was no way of getting them back to the developers. (but see below)
The plans themselves were, within the available parameters (flood plain on one side, existing housing development on another, and a cordon sanitaire to avoid methane poisoning from an old landfill site along the S border), reasonably good. But they looked incredibly crammed - one existing resident noticed that she'd have 6 gardens in the new properties bordering her own (average sized) garden. The architects themselved were 'surprised' that they'd not been asked to plan in for shops or any other community facilities, as this would be normal in an estate of this size. If enough people make the same point, they'd be open to putting some in.
Many of the folk there had only heard about it second hand, including some local parish councils, but there seemed to be a good turnout. The people I spoke to all seemed pretty unhappy with the designs, both how crammed they looked and the lack of shops and other public provision. The Riverside Park looked ok, but is down a steep slope, on land which is unsuitable for development, and the Section 106 agreement doesn't ask for the work to begin until 667 dwellings are occupied - i.e. the rest of the estate is finished. Only then will diggers and what not start driving through the newly built estate to the river at the back of it to start landscaping. Hmmmmm!
Just to compare, the Lufton development on the other side of Yeovil will have fewer houses, but the developers are aiming to provide a small cluster of retail units, and community meeting space as part of the school site. Lyde Road is 100 houses bigger, so it seems peculiar that it gets less facilities. Apart from the school gate, there will be nowhere to meet, it will be an incredibly lonely and isolated place to live unless a bit more thought is given to the plans.
If you went to the consultation and want to have your say, the postal address to contact is:
Hammonds Yates Ltd.
3 Harbour Crescent
Serbert Way
Portishead
BS20 7FT
Fao Steve Hawkins.
these are the architects, so they design the estate, but they don't control the parameters, so don't shoot them. Barrats the developers, are on 01392 423014, and the planning department at South Somerset District Council, who've overseen the development so far, can be contacted through the council switchboard on 01935 462462
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Yeovil to grow 60% by 2026?
If you're not Yeovil or Somerset-based, this may not interest you, so skip it!!
An official inspectors response has just been published (big file, broadband recommended) to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is a region-wide planning document which sketches out the next 20 or so years in terms of housing, transport, environment, employment etc.
The original RSS, published in 2006, planned for growth of 300 houses a year in Yeovil urban area, to meet it's share of regional housebuilding, which in turn was based on national projections. The national projections have since risen, and this has come through in the inspectors report - it equates to an extra 2500 houses per year across the region, on top of what was already planned.
Pages 179-183 of the full report - which seems to be pretty much accepted by the South West regional authoritites deal with the Yeovil area, and project growth of 9,100 new jobs (about 30%) in the Yeovil and district area. To house the extra workers and their dependants, the RSS looks more to urban centres than rural ones to bear the brunt of the housing. So Yeovil's housing projection has been revised upwards from 6,400 to 11,400. The report accepts that finding land for an extra 5,000 houses (i.e. a town the size of Wells) is 'a daunting task', and may involve the Yeovil urban area crossing the Dorset border.
11,400 houses, at normal occupancy levels of an average of 2.3 people per house, translates into 26220 extra people, on top of the existing Yeovil population of just over 40,000. So by 2030 we will be the size of Taunton, and still growing. This will radically change the nature of the town, and it's surrounds, and presents a massive challenge for our urban planners, as well as for the church. It makes the work we're doing to draw together teams for the 3 new housing estates currently in the pipeline (2000 houses between them) look quite modest, considering that over 5 times that number of houses could be built within the next generation.
If you're part of a church in an urban centre anywhere in the SW of England, you need to read the report. This will define the future shape of your community, and the number of people living there.
An official inspectors response has just been published (big file, broadband recommended) to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West. The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) is a region-wide planning document which sketches out the next 20 or so years in terms of housing, transport, environment, employment etc.
The original RSS, published in 2006, planned for growth of 300 houses a year in Yeovil urban area, to meet it's share of regional housebuilding, which in turn was based on national projections. The national projections have since risen, and this has come through in the inspectors report - it equates to an extra 2500 houses per year across the region, on top of what was already planned.
Pages 179-183 of the full report - which seems to be pretty much accepted by the South West regional authoritites deal with the Yeovil area, and project growth of 9,100 new jobs (about 30%) in the Yeovil and district area. To house the extra workers and their dependants, the RSS looks more to urban centres than rural ones to bear the brunt of the housing. So Yeovil's housing projection has been revised upwards from 6,400 to 11,400. The report accepts that finding land for an extra 5,000 houses (i.e. a town the size of Wells) is 'a daunting task', and may involve the Yeovil urban area crossing the Dorset border.
11,400 houses, at normal occupancy levels of an average of 2.3 people per house, translates into 26220 extra people, on top of the existing Yeovil population of just over 40,000. So by 2030 we will be the size of Taunton, and still growing. This will radically change the nature of the town, and it's surrounds, and presents a massive challenge for our urban planners, as well as for the church. It makes the work we're doing to draw together teams for the 3 new housing estates currently in the pipeline (2000 houses between them) look quite modest, considering that over 5 times that number of houses could be built within the next generation.
If you're part of a church in an urban centre anywhere in the SW of England, you need to read the report. This will define the future shape of your community, and the number of people living there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)