My recent visits to Arborfield have underlined village opposition to large scale development on greenfields outside the MOD brownfields.
The Council’s Core Strategy which identifies Arborfield as a location for substantial new development is the Council’s response to Labour government requirements to build extra houses.
The Conservatives have stated that if elected to government they will abolish regional planning quangos and the regional housing targets that require Wokingham to build on this scale. The Council would under these proposals be free to draw up a new local plan with less development in it. I would urge them to draw up such a plan keeping the sensitive greenfields adjacent to the existing settlement free of new building, and to take into account transport and flooding constraints on housing numbers. They would be free to do this for any land where planning permission had not yet been granted under the existing government targets and plans.
Promoted by Christine Hill on behalf of John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU
April 28, 2010
Right, they are also talking about building 20,000 new houses here in Rushcliffe, Ken Clarke's constituency. It is the same all over the country in fact, as we need, I think, 8 new Birmingham's to house our growing population.
The only way to stop it would be to send immigrants home, if you're not prepared to do that, then prepare to watch our ecosystem get devastated as it gets built over.
No more green and pleasant land, courtesy of the 3 main political parties. At least we don't have to bother worrying about climate change, all the new cities required will create heat islands warming the entire country a few degrees. This will be a good thing, as many people will struggle to pay their power bills, thanks to the new tax for carbon credits introduced before Parliament broke up.
Though Celanese Acetate closed today, losing 460 jobs, due to high energy prices. On current trends our future is no jobs and no food. Which means civil war and a population collapse.
April 28, 2010
You seem to have more detail of this policy than is in the manifesto. Are there examples of government policy retrospectively changing planning decisions? Who would cover the considerable cost of the council having to start again on their core strategy? Bear in mind that this change would be repeated across the UK as many other authorities are well progressed with their LDFs. I thought a new government was trying to save money. Not to mention if not here then where will the houses be built?
Reply:The aim is not to change planning decisions made, but to change long term plans to prevent more bad decisions.
April 29, 2010
Matt
You cannot cancel Planning permission, but you can object before it is granted.
The only other hope, and it is a hope, is try and object to everything that is proposed by the developer if only (and only if) outline permission has been given in the first instance subject to conditions, and hope to delay until that permission runs out, Starts/Building usually has to be made 3-5 years after Original permission has been given.
If no start before 3-5 years, and Planning has run out, then a new application has to be made. A Council could then refuse without any costs being incurred, but the developer could go to Independent Appeal, which could overule the Council decision.
Only way to get an approval removed is through High Court action (a very very good case required) very expensive not recomended.
Sorry if you are aware of the above, but Central Government has imposed housing quota's on many areas, (and as I understand it) under the threat of witholding Central Funds, which would thus raise your Council Tax.
May 7, 2010
I thought a new government was trying to save money. Not to mention if not here then where will the houses be built?