http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/04/20/controversial-eco-town-decision-delayed-again-97319-23424394/
I have no problem with the campaigners against the Middle Quinton Eco Town - the BARD campaign have been very succesful in getting the issues into the media, and into the Courts.
But if the Government are going to put off a decision for them until the end of the year, perhaps they could also do the same for us?
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
UKIP Eco-Town Meeting 17 April 2009
The UK Independence Party of Bognor Regis & Littlehampton are holding a public meeting regarding the proposed Eco-Town at Ford Airfield. Speakers are Douglas Denny, local prospective Parliamentary candidate for UKIP, Tam Large, John Wallace and Phil Lee.
The meeting takes place on Friday 17 April 2009 7.30pm at Climping Village Hall.
Click for more UKIP...
The meeting takes place on Friday 17 April 2009 7.30pm at Climping Village Hall.
Click for more UKIP...
Monday, 13 April 2009
Aldingbourne in outright rejection of housing proposals as unsustainable
A firm 'no' to thousands of homes has been given by Aldingbourne councillors. They have formally told Arun District Council about their opposition to its proposal to earmark land around the Westergate, Barnham and Eastergate area for 2,500 homes.The idea is one of three options for new housing before 2026 which Arun District Council had issued for consultation. It has alarmed villagers and Aldingbourne Parish Council reflected that opposition in its formal comments to the district council.
John Penfold, (pictured), the parish council's chairman, said: "It has taken nearly 1,000 years for Aldingbourne to reach its current size. Click here to read the dull story in full...
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Thousands comment on Arun's large-scale housing plans
Thousands of residents have commented on Arun's proposals for major housing developments and plans for new jobs, community facilities and better transport links. The seven-week consultation on the blueprint which could shape the district up to 2026 drew responses from more than 3,000 people. Click here for more...
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Local Government Association Warns that Eco Towns may be illegal
More from the Telegraph today - and a nicely chosen photgraph on the link below!
"New legal advice the Local Government Association (LGA) has commissioned suggests eco-towns could be illegal because of a failure to consult properly.
The LGA said the towns should be reconsidered in areas where there was strong local opposition."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/5114784/Eco-towns-cannot-go-ahead-without-support-of-local-community-say-townhalls.html
"New legal advice the Local Government Association (LGA) has commissioned suggests eco-towns could be illegal because of a failure to consult properly.
The LGA said the towns should be reconsidered in areas where there was strong local opposition."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/5114784/Eco-towns-cannot-go-ahead-without-support-of-local-community-say-townhalls.html
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
South Downs National Park
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2009/country-0331.htm
So we have a National Park announcement at last!
They are excluding Arundel for some reason, but including the castle.
From an eco-town point of view the boundary is close to the proposed new rail station and the eco-town would very much be in the sight-lines of the National Park so it is one more reason to say No to the new town.
That said, the excluded area might accommodate an it's necessary/no it isn't/yes it is by-pass at some stage but still leaves issues relating to how/where a by-pass reconnects to the A27 in the West which could again impact any development in this area if the by-pass remains a pre-requisite
So we have a National Park announcement at last!
They are excluding Arundel for some reason, but including the castle.
From an eco-town point of view the boundary is close to the proposed new rail station and the eco-town would very much be in the sight-lines of the National Park so it is one more reason to say No to the new town.
That said, the excluded area might accommodate an it's necessary/no it isn't/yes it is by-pass at some stage but still leaves issues relating to how/where a by-pass reconnects to the A27 in the West which could again impact any development in this area if the by-pass remains a pre-requisite
Monday, 30 March 2009
More Hypocrisy from our Caravanning Minister
http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/corporate/bitsbetweenbuildings
This link takes you to Margaret Beckett's fascinating speech about "Why the bits between the buildings matter".
I happen to thinlk the bits between Ford, Clymping, Yapton and Arundel are pretty important - they matter a lot to me in terms of their beauty, amenity value, their agricultural value, because they allecviate flood risk along the coast and Arun valley, and because this is the only coastal plain "GAP" between Newhaven and the New Forest.
She want's to dump an eco-town there - on this majority greenfield site - only thejn to make it 40% green space (after years fo building upheaval and desecration).
It's a no brainer Margaret - No eco town here please!
This link takes you to Margaret Beckett's fascinating speech about "Why the bits between the buildings matter".
I happen to thinlk the bits between Ford, Clymping, Yapton and Arundel are pretty important - they matter a lot to me in terms of their beauty, amenity value, their agricultural value, because they allecviate flood risk along the coast and Arun valley, and because this is the only coastal plain "GAP" between Newhaven and the New Forest.
She want's to dump an eco-town there - on this majority greenfield site - only thejn to make it 40% green space (after years fo building upheaval and desecration).
It's a no brainer Margaret - No eco town here please!
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Bognor Observer this week
Have just been told that Iain Wright (junior Government Minister) has successfully managed to avoid answering the questions put to him about the eco town - all much as you'd expect, but worth spending a few pence on the Bognor Observer to watch him wriggle out of the questions!
http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/FORD-ECOTOWN-Housing-minister-put.5108406.jp
http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/FORD-ECOTOWN-Housing-minister-put.5108406.jp
Eco-towns plan undermined by official report
The news for the proposers of the Eco Towns is making grim reading at the moment - and this time it is the Government's financial advisers saying that only three of the sites are in line to make a profit - For Ford they say that it could end up with potential losses requiring serious public subsidy.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/176f2688-18d2-11de-bec8-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/176f2688-18d2-11de-bec8-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
Council Leader highlights flaws in the Eco Town transport plans
The Highways Agency having now said that the so-called transport plans for the Ford Eco Sham are unacceptable - and it's good to see the Argus picking up on this story on a weekly basis now!
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4225315.Eco_town_scheme_at_Ford_has__major_flaws_/
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4225315.Eco_town_scheme_at_Ford_has__major_flaws_/
Monday, 23 March 2009
Minister agrees to meet with MPs to discuss eco-town proposal
Press release from Nick Herbert!
West Sussex MPs Nick Herbert (Arundel & South Downs) and Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis & Littlehampton) will meet with Housing Minister Margaret Beckett to discuss the Government’s proposal to build an ‘eco-town’ at Ford.
Mrs Beckett’s pledge to meet with the MPs came during a Commons debate on Wednesday last week (18 March) called by Mr Herbert.
During the debate, Mr Herbert said that an eco-town of 5,000 houses would dwarf any of the existing settlements in his rural constituency and expressed concern about its impact on the countryside. He said that it would be built on a greenfield site, destroying an area of high-grade agricultural land and creating an urban sprawl that would join up the villages of Ford, Yapton and Climping.
Mr Herbert highlighted a promise made by the promoters early last year to spend £200 million on the local infrastructure, but said there was already an infrastructure deficit in the area and that 5,000 new houses would present a “huge challenge” to the already-congested local road network.
Mr Herbert drew attention to the conflict between the Government’s advisers, the Eco-Town Challenge Panel, who said that a new bypass for the A27 at Arundel should be dropped because it would not be compatible with a “green” development, and the promoters who agreed that a bypass was essential and promised a financial contribution towards the cost. The promoters now say that an eco-town “is in no way dependent upon the bypass being in place”.
Mr Herbert questioned the proposal from developers that a waste facility would be provided for the eco-town. He said it was out of kilter with measures already taken by the County Council and would rely on importing enormous quantities of waste from other counties, posing “a significant challenge to the concept of an environmentally friendly development”.
Going on to examine the issues around local democracy, Mr Herbert said that it should be the local authority who decides where new houses are located, not the Government, and asked the Minister to confirm whether 5,000 houses at Ford would be additional to the housing targets set by the Government.
In his concluding remarks, Mr Herbert requested a meeting with the Minister and added: “I hope that she (Mrs Beckett) will understand that the local concern about the issue is very great indeed. I fear that a significant part of my constituency is about to be irrevocably transformed, and I cannot overestimate to the right honourable Lady the seriousness of the issue or how it is regarded locally.”
Contributing to the debate, Mr Gibb expressed doubt over the viability of the scheme, saying: “Clearly some people will make money by turning agricultural land worth £4,000 an acre into building land worth £1 million an acre. As my honourable Friend said, 87 per cent of the land is pristine, high-quality agricultural land.
“Even with that cash, however, we do not believe that it will be possible to deliver the three new schools, the social housing, the water recycling, the energy system, the new roads, the new bypass or the bunding for the river to protect against flooding that appear to have been promised at one time or another in this process.”
Mr Gibb also pointed out that in Arun, 1,350 houses are waiting to be built, of which 40 per cent will be social housing. He said that these new homes will make “a significant contribution to people in the A, B and C categories on the Arun district housing waiting list”.
Replying to the debate, Housing Minister Margaret Beckett agreed to meet with Mr Herbert and Mr Gibb to discuss the eco-town proposal for Ford. She also confirmed that 5,000 houses at Ford could be subtracted from the overall housing target of 11,300 for Arun District over the next 20 years.
But the Minister did not answer Mr Herbert’s key question about the Arundel Bypass, and she said that the eco-towns programme was “an exciting opportunity” with “tremendous potential”.
Mrs Beckett also said that the Government’s intention was “that the first eco-towns will be taken from drawing board to development over the next couple of years, with more to follow and up to 10 under development by 2020” – implying that only a few eco-town proposals might receive early approval.
The BARD campaign, fighting plans for an eco-town at Long Marston in Warwickshire, announced last week (Wednesday 18 March) that it has sought permission to appeal against last month’s High Court decision denying them a judicial review into the Government’s policy on eco-towns. If leave for appeal were granted, it would be likely to delay for several further weeks the Government’s announcement on a final shortlist, which had been widely anticipated for June.
West Sussex MPs Nick Herbert (Arundel & South Downs) and Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis & Littlehampton) will meet with Housing Minister Margaret Beckett to discuss the Government’s proposal to build an ‘eco-town’ at Ford.
Mrs Beckett’s pledge to meet with the MPs came during a Commons debate on Wednesday last week (18 March) called by Mr Herbert.
During the debate, Mr Herbert said that an eco-town of 5,000 houses would dwarf any of the existing settlements in his rural constituency and expressed concern about its impact on the countryside. He said that it would be built on a greenfield site, destroying an area of high-grade agricultural land and creating an urban sprawl that would join up the villages of Ford, Yapton and Climping.
Mr Herbert highlighted a promise made by the promoters early last year to spend £200 million on the local infrastructure, but said there was already an infrastructure deficit in the area and that 5,000 new houses would present a “huge challenge” to the already-congested local road network.
Mr Herbert drew attention to the conflict between the Government’s advisers, the Eco-Town Challenge Panel, who said that a new bypass for the A27 at Arundel should be dropped because it would not be compatible with a “green” development, and the promoters who agreed that a bypass was essential and promised a financial contribution towards the cost. The promoters now say that an eco-town “is in no way dependent upon the bypass being in place”.
Mr Herbert questioned the proposal from developers that a waste facility would be provided for the eco-town. He said it was out of kilter with measures already taken by the County Council and would rely on importing enormous quantities of waste from other counties, posing “a significant challenge to the concept of an environmentally friendly development”.
Going on to examine the issues around local democracy, Mr Herbert said that it should be the local authority who decides where new houses are located, not the Government, and asked the Minister to confirm whether 5,000 houses at Ford would be additional to the housing targets set by the Government.
In his concluding remarks, Mr Herbert requested a meeting with the Minister and added: “I hope that she (Mrs Beckett) will understand that the local concern about the issue is very great indeed. I fear that a significant part of my constituency is about to be irrevocably transformed, and I cannot overestimate to the right honourable Lady the seriousness of the issue or how it is regarded locally.”
Contributing to the debate, Mr Gibb expressed doubt over the viability of the scheme, saying: “Clearly some people will make money by turning agricultural land worth £4,000 an acre into building land worth £1 million an acre. As my honourable Friend said, 87 per cent of the land is pristine, high-quality agricultural land.
“Even with that cash, however, we do not believe that it will be possible to deliver the three new schools, the social housing, the water recycling, the energy system, the new roads, the new bypass or the bunding for the river to protect against flooding that appear to have been promised at one time or another in this process.”
Mr Gibb also pointed out that in Arun, 1,350 houses are waiting to be built, of which 40 per cent will be social housing. He said that these new homes will make “a significant contribution to people in the A, B and C categories on the Arun district housing waiting list”.
Replying to the debate, Housing Minister Margaret Beckett agreed to meet with Mr Herbert and Mr Gibb to discuss the eco-town proposal for Ford. She also confirmed that 5,000 houses at Ford could be subtracted from the overall housing target of 11,300 for Arun District over the next 20 years.
But the Minister did not answer Mr Herbert’s key question about the Arundel Bypass, and she said that the eco-towns programme was “an exciting opportunity” with “tremendous potential”.
Mrs Beckett also said that the Government’s intention was “that the first eco-towns will be taken from drawing board to development over the next couple of years, with more to follow and up to 10 under development by 2020” – implying that only a few eco-town proposals might receive early approval.
The BARD campaign, fighting plans for an eco-town at Long Marston in Warwickshire, announced last week (Wednesday 18 March) that it has sought permission to appeal against last month’s High Court decision denying them a judicial review into the Government’s policy on eco-towns. If leave for appeal were granted, it would be likely to delay for several further weeks the Government’s announcement on a final shortlist, which had been widely anticipated for June.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Eco-town debate transcript
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
BARD's legal challenge - new appeal
Just got this from the BARD Campaign, fighting the proposed eco town at MIddle Quinton, but doing so by fighting the whole eco town policy! Which definitely helps us!
"The BARD Campaign today lodged an application with the Court of Appeal, seeking permission to appeal the ruling by Mr Justice Walker dated 27 January 2009 that the Government’s consultation on its April 2008 shortlist document: “Eco-towns Living a Greener Future” was lawful.
In summary, BARD’s application contends that:
1. the principle of eco-towns was not properly and lawfully consulted upon in the Housing Green Paper. There was no genuine consultation on the eco-town policy since the policy had already been determined;
2. the Government pledged there would be a consultation on the eco-towns principle and broke this promise;
3. the key criteria for eco-towns were not properly and lawfully consulted on;
4. the errors in the early consultation stages cannot be rectified by any improvement to future consultation that would be based on a pre-determined principle.
5. the failure to consult on the 42 sites rejected from the April 2008 shortlist was unlawful;
6. the Government has not provided adequate information to enable intelligent consultation on the proposed locations;
7. the eco-towns policies are subject to the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004;
8. the Strategic Environmental Assessment should have begun by the “Eco-towns - Living a Greener Future” stage;
9. BARD’s application for disclosure should have been considered before the hearing of their substantial complaint since the materials requested were clearly relevant and could have helped BARD’s case.
This application will impact the eco-town programme timeframe as the Government has given BARD an undertaking that consultation on ‘Middle Quinton’ would close no sooner than six weeks after the outcome of the proceedings. The current consultation end date is 30 April 2009 (six weeks tomorrow) yet a decision from the Court of Appeal as to whether to grant leave to appeal could take several weeks.
David Bliss, Chairman of the BARD Campaign said:
“We were disappointed with Mr Justice Walker’s ruling. It can surely be beyond doubt that the information provided by the Government on eco-towns has been confused, flawed and inadequate, thereby making it impossible for ordinary members of the public to engage in serious consultation.
“It is regrettable that we now rely on the Court of Appeal for us to be given an opportunity to consult on the principle and key criteria for new environmentally-friendly affordable settlements. Local opinions should be heard.”
"The BARD Campaign today lodged an application with the Court of Appeal, seeking permission to appeal the ruling by Mr Justice Walker dated 27 January 2009 that the Government’s consultation on its April 2008 shortlist document: “Eco-towns Living a Greener Future” was lawful.
In summary, BARD’s application contends that:
1. the principle of eco-towns was not properly and lawfully consulted upon in the Housing Green Paper. There was no genuine consultation on the eco-town policy since the policy had already been determined;
2. the Government pledged there would be a consultation on the eco-towns principle and broke this promise;
3. the key criteria for eco-towns were not properly and lawfully consulted on;
4. the errors in the early consultation stages cannot be rectified by any improvement to future consultation that would be based on a pre-determined principle.
5. the failure to consult on the 42 sites rejected from the April 2008 shortlist was unlawful;
6. the Government has not provided adequate information to enable intelligent consultation on the proposed locations;
7. the eco-towns policies are subject to the requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004;
8. the Strategic Environmental Assessment should have begun by the “Eco-towns - Living a Greener Future” stage;
9. BARD’s application for disclosure should have been considered before the hearing of their substantial complaint since the materials requested were clearly relevant and could have helped BARD’s case.
This application will impact the eco-town programme timeframe as the Government has given BARD an undertaking that consultation on ‘Middle Quinton’ would close no sooner than six weeks after the outcome of the proceedings. The current consultation end date is 30 April 2009 (six weeks tomorrow) yet a decision from the Court of Appeal as to whether to grant leave to appeal could take several weeks.
David Bliss, Chairman of the BARD Campaign said:
“We were disappointed with Mr Justice Walker’s ruling. It can surely be beyond doubt that the information provided by the Government on eco-towns has been confused, flawed and inadequate, thereby making it impossible for ordinary members of the public to engage in serious consultation.
“It is regrettable that we now rely on the Court of Appeal for us to be given an opportunity to consult on the principle and key criteria for new environmentally-friendly affordable settlements. Local opinions should be heard.”
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
Parking Policy for new homes - reality revealed by Essex CC
Interesting reading about the lead being taken by Essex County Council here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5920679.ece
"The council found that planning guidance issued between 1998 and 2001 had created a severe shortage of spaces in many developments. Families had responded not by giving up their second car but by parking on narrow residential roads, blocking access for emergency services and refuse collection lorries.
There are more than 1.5 cars per home in 35 per cent of council wards in Essex. Nationally, there are more homes with two or more cars than there are homes without a car. "
When will the proposers of these eco towns realise that people are not going to be pushed around, and will continue to live the lives they choose. Building 'eco towns' with next to no parking will result in the surrounding areas, the pavements and the roads a congested mess as people refuse to line up and be limited by the strictures of the politicans and the lies of the developers.
"Rationing parking spaces doesn’t stop people owning cars, it just means they park where it is most inconvenient for everyone else."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5920679.ece
"The council found that planning guidance issued between 1998 and 2001 had created a severe shortage of spaces in many developments. Families had responded not by giving up their second car but by parking on narrow residential roads, blocking access for emergency services and refuse collection lorries.
There are more than 1.5 cars per home in 35 per cent of council wards in Essex. Nationally, there are more homes with two or more cars than there are homes without a car. "
When will the proposers of these eco towns realise that people are not going to be pushed around, and will continue to live the lives they choose. Building 'eco towns' with next to no parking will result in the surrounding areas, the pavements and the roads a congested mess as people refuse to line up and be limited by the strictures of the politicans and the lies of the developers.
"Rationing parking spaces doesn’t stop people owning cars, it just means they park where it is most inconvenient for everyone else."
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Local needs first means no Eco-Town at Ford
Darrell Gale from Arundel writes - in all of the lies, misrepresentations, u-turns, and, of course, the "visions" and greenwash spread by the proposers of the new town at Ford – both the endless paid consultants and the sad, self-interested councillors and former councillors for Aldingbourne – I never thought that I would actually agree with anything they said. Click for more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)