Controversial homes blueprint delayed again
Controversial plans to build almost 600,000 new homes in the south west - including 21,300 in the Bath area - were plunged into further chaos today because of legal action on the other side of England.
Campaigners welcomed the delay in approving the official planning blueprint for the region, claiming a victory for people power.
-
green belt protesters
The Government document – the regional spatial strategy (RSS) – has triggered widespread protests and warnings of the eradication of the green belt.
The RSS originally said 569,450 new homes should be built in the region by 2026, a figure many campaigners felt was far too high in a recession, at a time when construction of existing developments had all but ground to a halt.
But ministers announced in July last year they would add an additional 23,000 houses, causing uproar across the South West.
The allocation for Bath and north east Somerset has leapt in recent times from an original 15,500 to 18,800 and then to 21,300.
B&NES Council accepted the original target but - backed by city MP Don Foster, who has called the higher figure "barking mad" - has set its face against the newer demands.
Now the Government has told council bosses it will not publish the final version of the RSS at the end of this month as planned, because of a legal case involving its East of England equivalent.
Its publication had already been delayed once, because of the sheer volume of objections to the contents of draft versions of the RSS, which sets general rules on future development.
Jon Bright, who heads the Government Office for the South West, has written to local authorities saying a High Court judgement had ruled that the East of England document had "failed to meet certain requirements of the EU strategic environmental assessment directive".
His letter said civil servants were considering what the judgement meant for the west, but could not "reach a clear view" until the court issued a written judgement.
"It is not possible to set a new timetable, until the implications of the judgement have been clarified, and what action is required, if any."
7 Comments
View all
by garth184@hotmail.com, 9 Ferndale Road
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 3:32PM
“If you want to find hundreds of unused/ un occupied premises, all you need do is to raise your eyes above shop window level and there they are. Some time two or three floors of vacant rooms. I'm sure making separate access would not always be easy, but not impossible in many cases.”
by Walter McCabe, Freshford Nr Bath
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 2:43PM
“Nicola what a rose tinted view you seem to have about the future of our agricultural land and greenbelt. I could show you acres of redundant brownfield across the area that Government should give tax breaks for building on.”
by paul, Odd Down
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 2:30PM
“"I know that green belt land is really beautiful and no one wants to see it destroyed but what alternatives are there to the housing situation? "
Nicola, There is alternative to building on green belt. It is to build upwards and not outwards. In this way the amount of land that might otherwise take up one large detached house can be used to provide mulitples of 1 and 2 bedroom flats.
Surely this is the most sensible option in an ever-growing population with an ever-decreasing supply of usable land?”
by anil, south glos
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 10:30AM
“Here's another view:
"Dr Marc Hartwich, chief economist at the Policy Exchange, argued in an article in Total Politics magazine that the debate over safeguarding the Green Belt had become too emotional and argued that the designation "had elevated imagination over reality in Britain's planning system".
He said the public mistakenly believed that Green Belt areas were "the last remnants of what was once England's green and pleasant land".
In fact, he said, much of the Green Belt was "home to industrialised agriculture" rather than full of "birds, bugs and gentle hedgerows".
He wrote: "We need some hard-headed thought about how and why we need to protect land from the development we need."
More at: planningportal dot gov dot uk
I live in a pretty village which is declining due to under-development. Local people, specially youngsters are unable to buy any sort of dwelling in the area. 'Luxury' houses, built some years ago has resulted in a huge increase in 4 wheel drive vehicles. They seem to take business out-of-town, so 2 of the local shops have shut. Public transport remains at the same level it did in 1914. I'd welcome more development of mixed housing. Green belt, in this instance, is a mixed blessing and does nothing to promote low-impact and sustainable lifestyles.”
by Nicola, Bath
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 9:56AM
“You have a very good point John, thankyou for answering my query! I thought the MOD sites were supposed to be vacated by now but they seem to keep postponing!”