Summary Statement – Friday 30th May 2008
Friday afternoon’s session was without doubt one of the most technically challenging for the Select Committee, as we were dealing with highly technical subjects, often at the forefront of technology where the debate is unresolved even amongst the experts. Some of the Eco Town claims include technology that is being introduced in Abu Dhabi, but is not yet trusted by the Portsmouth Water Company!
At the heart of our investigations were the central proposals for energy generation, which form the basis for exemplar status. We were concerned not only about these proposals in their own right, but also because of the reliance on energy generation to subsidise other elements, such as the Community Development Trust, and the employment/business mix.
What emerged from our discussion was that the central proposition is for a power generating plant, which would rely to a degree on gas burning, both initially and as a fall-back. In time, it would develop into a full blown waste-toenergy plant, initially taking waste from the Eco Town. If the claims of the Vision Group of generating 4 times the energy requirements of the Eco Town are to be achieved this would require a large number of refuse lorries to feed the plant, importing waste from further afield. To make sure the Select Committee isn’t misdirected, I am going to ask the promoters if they can reach an agreement with the County Waste Officers on exactly what these numbers are, and what the possible waste catchment might be.
The promoters argue that these lorries would be on the road network anyway, but directing them to the Eco Town, and making it a net importer of waste is a matter of significant concern, and it seems to the Select Committee that this is not a sound basis on which to establish a sustainable New Town. The claims for generating energy from the tidal flow of the Arun were found to be marginal to the scheme, so the main advantage of the site is the colocation of the MRF and the Waste Water Treatment plant. While the technical complications of using Waste Water Treatment residue for energy production might be overcome, the MRF would only be one element of the waste stream required, so this significantly diminishes this advantage.
The Council’s advisers were concerned that the energy proposals are not wholly ‘green’, as they would result in carbon emissions, both from the energy production itself, and also from the initial waste ‘cleaning’ processes required. The promoters claimed they would achieve carbon neutral as a balance across many factors, but it was not clear how this would be achieved. There were many other difficulties, such as the reliance on agreements with waste contractors for feeding the waste stream, and overall the Select Committee were left with considerable concern at this element of the bid proposals. With regard to the water cycle proposals, it is clearly possible to design and develop communities to maximise rain water capture, and reduce water consumption to a high degree of efficiency. The proposals to introduce a dual grey/potable water system seemed to be costly and wasteful if indeed the ‘grey’ water is in fact potable.
With regard to the design, town scape and landscape implications of high environmental performance, the promoters confirmed that they expect the development to be largely 2 storeys, while also achieving high densities, and in some, mainly central locations, storey heights might increase to 3, or at most 4 storeys.
Inquiry supporting documents can be found here.
Friday 30 May 2008
Thursday 29 May 2008
Eco-towns Select Committee - Day 3
Summary Statement – Thursday 29th May 2008
All sides are agreed that more work needs to be done on the economic impact. FAVG have agreed to participate in an economic impact assessment with the Council, and this is very welcome, but that does make it difficult to see how we can make decisions without this further information. However:
Once again, the A27/Arundel bypass is a critical factor – the difficulties and challenges posed by delivering any significant employment in this part of the world, let alone high-end business, can only be overcome by improved road access, and so the bypass must be a pre-requisite. However, we have heard that even this may not be enough, given the macro-accessibility challenges of the area.
A key element of the FAVG offer is energy production, and the potential to support long term governance over employment and business investment. We will be debating energy production tomorrow, but we are not sure at this stage how location-specific this is, as energy is relatively efficient to move around.
It seems to us that there must, at some level, be some competition and therefore conflict with current regeneration programmes in Littlehampton and Bognor Regis, and we have heard that while good progress is being made with these schemes, they are still at a relatively early and somewhat fragile stage of delivery, so any threat to them is a matter of serious concern. There is also concern over the future of employment sites in Littlehampton and Bognor Regis, and the loss of local jobs to the Eco Town.
We have heard the FEH concept of a Science Park being doubted by FAVG, and this does seem to emerge as a significant difference between the bids. There was common acceptance that we would not get a Science Park on this site, and it is not clear whether the main factors for even a Technology Park would be present. The very fact the energy subsidy/long term governance are key factors implies that subsidy is required for the business/employment mix, so this again becomes a further area of uncertainty, both for initial delivery, and long term sustainability.
Housing
On planned housing provision, the SE Plan panel have recommended that Arun District should provide 11,300 dwellings in the period 2006-2026 – an increase of 2,000 on the SEERA recommended provision. The panel report makes reference to the strategic potential of the broad area to the West of the river Arun, and also that this should support regeneration in Littlehampton and Bognor Regis. However, it also says that this could be provided without coalescence of existing communities. Some of this is consistent with Ford as a strategic location, but some of it is not.
Work at Arun District Council has identified urban extensions as the solutions most likely to meet Arun’s needs in an acceptable and sustainable way. However, this work also identifies a shortfall of 4,500 dwellings post 2016, and when probed, the Councils witness could not indicate whether this could be satisfactorily provided as further, or more intensive urban extensions.
With regard to housing need, it typically takes 5/7 years to move from the housing register into accommodation at present, and the register currently has about 1400 households in bands A, B and C, where there is a degree of need and 2,600 households in band D where the need is less. We were also told that local people will strongly resist relocating, even at the promise of improved housing.
All affordable housing locally depends on private developments through s106 agreements, and there is a significant shortfall in delivery.
The Council’s witness argued that delivery through an Eco Town would be no more reliable than delivery through urban extensions, as they both depend on private funding and the market. The promoters claim that the scale and
comprehensive nature of their scheme and the longer term resilience of the housing and property market support their commitment to achieve 5,000 dwellings and 40% affordable housing across the scheme as a whole. They also explained in some detail how they would procure the affordable housing, in partnership with the local authority and a selected group of RSLs.
It does seem to the Select Committee that there are severe housing problems facing the District, both immediately, and in terms of housing delivery through the planning process. The here and now problems cannot be addressed by the Eco Town, but the current poor delivery rate means that these problems are likely to be chronic, rather than short term, and in the long run, the planning delivery problems are going to need radical solutions to which there are no easy answers. The SE Plan report does seem to be contradictory in relation to location, but on housing delivery grounds alone, the Eco Town proposals and location would provide a solution. However, the Select Committee were not persuaded that the Eco Town is the best solution, as there was insufficient evidence available about other alternatives, such as urban extensions. It seems to the Select Committee that giving a commitment to a whole new town is too serious to decide on the evidence which happens to be available to us today, and we believe it is imperative and urgent that further work is done to explore all alternatives for dealing with these housing problems, rather than just supporting an Eco Town because it’s all that’s being offered..
We discussed the question of whether the site can properly be described as Previously Developed Land, and while the promoters claim that a significant part of the site is properly PDL in terms of the government definition, local people perceive it to be mostly open and productive farmland, and furthermore, that the remaining structures within the Eco Town area have
largely blended into the landscape, which would exclude it from the governments definition. However, this discussion will continue on day 5, under ‘Environment’.
Inquiry supporting documents can be found here.
All sides are agreed that more work needs to be done on the economic impact. FAVG have agreed to participate in an economic impact assessment with the Council, and this is very welcome, but that does make it difficult to see how we can make decisions without this further information. However:
Once again, the A27/Arundel bypass is a critical factor – the difficulties and challenges posed by delivering any significant employment in this part of the world, let alone high-end business, can only be overcome by improved road access, and so the bypass must be a pre-requisite. However, we have heard that even this may not be enough, given the macro-accessibility challenges of the area.
A key element of the FAVG offer is energy production, and the potential to support long term governance over employment and business investment. We will be debating energy production tomorrow, but we are not sure at this stage how location-specific this is, as energy is relatively efficient to move around.
It seems to us that there must, at some level, be some competition and therefore conflict with current regeneration programmes in Littlehampton and Bognor Regis, and we have heard that while good progress is being made with these schemes, they are still at a relatively early and somewhat fragile stage of delivery, so any threat to them is a matter of serious concern. There is also concern over the future of employment sites in Littlehampton and Bognor Regis, and the loss of local jobs to the Eco Town.
We have heard the FEH concept of a Science Park being doubted by FAVG, and this does seem to emerge as a significant difference between the bids. There was common acceptance that we would not get a Science Park on this site, and it is not clear whether the main factors for even a Technology Park would be present. The very fact the energy subsidy/long term governance are key factors implies that subsidy is required for the business/employment mix, so this again becomes a further area of uncertainty, both for initial delivery, and long term sustainability.
Housing
On planned housing provision, the SE Plan panel have recommended that Arun District should provide 11,300 dwellings in the period 2006-2026 – an increase of 2,000 on the SEERA recommended provision. The panel report makes reference to the strategic potential of the broad area to the West of the river Arun, and also that this should support regeneration in Littlehampton and Bognor Regis. However, it also says that this could be provided without coalescence of existing communities. Some of this is consistent with Ford as a strategic location, but some of it is not.
Work at Arun District Council has identified urban extensions as the solutions most likely to meet Arun’s needs in an acceptable and sustainable way. However, this work also identifies a shortfall of 4,500 dwellings post 2016, and when probed, the Councils witness could not indicate whether this could be satisfactorily provided as further, or more intensive urban extensions.
With regard to housing need, it typically takes 5/7 years to move from the housing register into accommodation at present, and the register currently has about 1400 households in bands A, B and C, where there is a degree of need and 2,600 households in band D where the need is less. We were also told that local people will strongly resist relocating, even at the promise of improved housing.
All affordable housing locally depends on private developments through s106 agreements, and there is a significant shortfall in delivery.
The Council’s witness argued that delivery through an Eco Town would be no more reliable than delivery through urban extensions, as they both depend on private funding and the market. The promoters claim that the scale and
comprehensive nature of their scheme and the longer term resilience of the housing and property market support their commitment to achieve 5,000 dwellings and 40% affordable housing across the scheme as a whole. They also explained in some detail how they would procure the affordable housing, in partnership with the local authority and a selected group of RSLs.
It does seem to the Select Committee that there are severe housing problems facing the District, both immediately, and in terms of housing delivery through the planning process. The here and now problems cannot be addressed by the Eco Town, but the current poor delivery rate means that these problems are likely to be chronic, rather than short term, and in the long run, the planning delivery problems are going to need radical solutions to which there are no easy answers. The SE Plan report does seem to be contradictory in relation to location, but on housing delivery grounds alone, the Eco Town proposals and location would provide a solution. However, the Select Committee were not persuaded that the Eco Town is the best solution, as there was insufficient evidence available about other alternatives, such as urban extensions. It seems to the Select Committee that giving a commitment to a whole new town is too serious to decide on the evidence which happens to be available to us today, and we believe it is imperative and urgent that further work is done to explore all alternatives for dealing with these housing problems, rather than just supporting an Eco Town because it’s all that’s being offered..
We discussed the question of whether the site can properly be described as Previously Developed Land, and while the promoters claim that a significant part of the site is properly PDL in terms of the government definition, local people perceive it to be mostly open and productive farmland, and furthermore, that the remaining structures within the Eco Town area have
largely blended into the landscape, which would exclude it from the governments definition. However, this discussion will continue on day 5, under ‘Environment’.
Inquiry supporting documents can be found here.
When 10 becomes 9...
It appears that the developers of the Ford Airfield Eco Town are making it up as they go along. In the proposal they inform us, “The existing 180mm diameter medium pressure gas main along Yapton Road is a strategic supply main for the Arun district. New development at Ford would easily connect to this existing gas main which passes through the development site and by reinforcement to the existing district gas network”.
On page 6 of the Bognor Observer (22 May), and various other Sussex news papers, Ford Airfield Eco-Town printed 10 facts we should know. Fact 9 is an interesting one - "The Eco-Town will generate all its energy from renewable resources and will generate significantly more than it will require. All surplus energy will be sold back to the National Grid". Wow - that is visionary, gosh I wish I thought of that!
The same ads appeared in various Sussex papers today - but instead of "10 facts you should know about Ford Airfield Eco-Town" it now reads, "some facts about local housing". Guess what - the one essential thing that would make Ford Eco-Town green and energy efficiant is now missing - Fact 9 published on May 22nd!
Does this mean the developers are going to connect to the gas main which is carbon polluting and non renewable? Your guess is as good as mine. I'll use that word again - Econtradiction - nicely sums up everything about this Eco-Town flim flam! Perhaps they would like to drop Mr Gummidge an email explaining their plans...
On page 6 of the Bognor Observer (22 May), and various other Sussex news papers, Ford Airfield Eco-Town printed 10 facts we should know. Fact 9 is an interesting one - "The Eco-Town will generate all its energy from renewable resources and will generate significantly more than it will require. All surplus energy will be sold back to the National Grid". Wow - that is visionary, gosh I wish I thought of that!
The same ads appeared in various Sussex papers today - but instead of "10 facts you should know about Ford Airfield Eco-Town" it now reads, "some facts about local housing". Guess what - the one essential thing that would make Ford Eco-Town green and energy efficiant is now missing - Fact 9 published on May 22nd!
Does this mean the developers are going to connect to the gas main which is carbon polluting and non renewable? Your guess is as good as mine. I'll use that word again - Econtradiction - nicely sums up everything about this Eco-Town flim flam! Perhaps they would like to drop Mr Gummidge an email explaining their plans...
People united against Ford Eco-Town
I did a leaflet drop for the Protest March on June 7th today and it was really great to see people supporting the campaign against Ford Eco-Town. There are plenty of posters in windows, car stickers and homemade banners being made. When I asked people if they were coming on the march - "OH YES", and "We're going to make it into a BIG party!", was some of the enthusiastic responses.
Astonishingly, I came across one misguided chap who supported the idea. I felt very sorry for him because he clearly had not researched or read anything about this proposal and is in a minority like the people proposing this outrageous fantasy called an Eco Town...
Astonishingly, I came across one misguided chap who supported the idea. I felt very sorry for him because he clearly had not researched or read anything about this proposal and is in a minority like the people proposing this outrageous fantasy called an Eco Town...
Eight years of traffic chaos
Eight years of traffic chaos will hit West Sussex if proposals to build a 5,000-home eco-town go ahead, the chairman of a public inquiry has said.
Councillor Graham Tyler said no-one at the first day's hearing had denied the impact of building the scheme on roads in the Ford area, near Littlehampton. Click here for more...
Councillor Graham Tyler said no-one at the first day's hearing had denied the impact of building the scheme on roads in the Ford area, near Littlehampton. Click here for more...
Wednesday 28 May 2008
Eco-towns Select Committee - Day 2
Summary Statement – Wednesday 28th May 2008
The Select Committee consider that the Arundel Bypass is perhaps the biggest obstacle for the eco-town to overcome and must be a prerequisite for any such development. There is no commitment to funding by the developers - they claim that Ford would bring forward the Bypass but we have seen no evidence of this, particularly as the Highways Agency has not attended. This is a critical area of concern.
The link to the Arundel Bypass also poses key difficulties - the only solution which has been explored is traffic lights but we do not believe this can be a credible solution to dealing with a single lane bottle neck to a complete new town.
We are concerned that the link through the site from the A27 to the A259 is now an option rather than a commitment. Both bids made much of the advantages that this would bring to the District and this needs to be resolved.
Rail - the Select Committee were hampered by the lack of direct evidence and the absence of Network Rail. We are concerned that the strategic rail authority is notoriously difficult to influence and this must question this area of deliverability.
Buses - we are concerned that there has been no meaningful negotiation with the bus operators for 3 years. The evidence provided was that an internal shuttle service even of the complete scheme would not be viable without subsidy, as would bus travel generally after 8.30 p.m. and at weekends. There also appear to be major difficulties with travel times on longer bus routes.
Internalisation - There are clearly many unknowns. The Select Committee can see that it is possible to design communities to favour non car use but, as above, these may well depend on subsidy and investment as yet unquantified. It is also agreed that successful outcomes rely on behavioural change over a long time frame whereas delivery would be in the next 6 - 10 years.
Inquiry supporting documents can be found here.
The Select Committee consider that the Arundel Bypass is perhaps the biggest obstacle for the eco-town to overcome and must be a prerequisite for any such development. There is no commitment to funding by the developers - they claim that Ford would bring forward the Bypass but we have seen no evidence of this, particularly as the Highways Agency has not attended. This is a critical area of concern.
The link to the Arundel Bypass also poses key difficulties - the only solution which has been explored is traffic lights but we do not believe this can be a credible solution to dealing with a single lane bottle neck to a complete new town.
We are concerned that the link through the site from the A27 to the A259 is now an option rather than a commitment. Both bids made much of the advantages that this would bring to the District and this needs to be resolved.
Rail - the Select Committee were hampered by the lack of direct evidence and the absence of Network Rail. We are concerned that the strategic rail authority is notoriously difficult to influence and this must question this area of deliverability.
Buses - we are concerned that there has been no meaningful negotiation with the bus operators for 3 years. The evidence provided was that an internal shuttle service even of the complete scheme would not be viable without subsidy, as would bus travel generally after 8.30 p.m. and at weekends. There also appear to be major difficulties with travel times on longer bus routes.
Internalisation - There are clearly many unknowns. The Select Committee can see that it is possible to design communities to favour non car use but, as above, these may well depend on subsidy and investment as yet unquantified. It is also agreed that successful outcomes rely on behavioural change over a long time frame whereas delivery would be in the next 6 - 10 years.
Inquiry supporting documents can be found here.
Eco town or eco drown...
The site of the proposed new eco-town in Ford has been hit by flooding. Heavy rain last night and this morning (Monday, May 26) have left many roads covered in water as the rain struggles to drain away. Click for more... - and more here...
Image: Sara - Back in the garden
What news of the Arun Select Committee?
This week and next, Arun Council are holding a Select Committee enquiry into the Ford Eco Town proposals. In the normal scheme of Planning Applications, local authorities get to make decisions about their local area. The government give them targets, but local democracy decides where to build and why. For the Eco Towns though, the Government are not following this process. They have issued a shortlist and they will decide the outcome. With no time for the normal democratic process.
So Arun are trying their best to do what they would normally have several months to do - hold a planning enquiry. And that is happening this week and next. CAFE has been allowed to submit written evidence to the enquiry and to speak at certain points as particular issues are discussed. Clearly the developers will be doing the same, as are other interested groups.
Sadly I'm not there this week - though I wrote a paper on the employment aspects of the proposals (for an Eco Town to work, the people need to work locally - not live in some vast dormitory and commute miles to work elsewhere).
I'll post something up here when I hear how it is going - though if anyone knows more sooner, do let us know!
So Arun are trying their best to do what they would normally have several months to do - hold a planning enquiry. And that is happening this week and next. CAFE has been allowed to submit written evidence to the enquiry and to speak at certain points as particular issues are discussed. Clearly the developers will be doing the same, as are other interested groups.
Sadly I'm not there this week - though I wrote a paper on the employment aspects of the proposals (for an Eco Town to work, the people need to work locally - not live in some vast dormitory and commute miles to work elsewhere).
I'll post something up here when I hear how it is going - though if anyone knows more sooner, do let us know!
Petition
Please, if you're having a look at our blog, sign our petition!
http://www.petitiononline.com/rk3d6507/petition-sign.html?
Cheers, Geoff
http://www.petitiononline.com/rk3d6507/petition-sign.html?
Cheers, Geoff
Response form W.S.C.C. - Re Traffic Survey
I write in reply to your request for information regarding a traffic survey conducted on the 22nd May 2008 in the Yapton, Ford and Climping area. I can confirm that the Highways Section at West Sussex County Council did not commission the survey and I can only imagine that the survey was undertaken by a private company for purposes unknown to us.
Regards
Luke Rogers
Senior Engineer,
Safety Engineering,
West Sussex County Council
Regards
Luke Rogers
Senior Engineer,
Safety Engineering,
West Sussex County Council
Tuesday 27 May 2008
Eco-towns Select Committee - Day 1
Summary Statement – Tuesday 27th May 2008
We have had a very interesting opening day and the context has been well set to enable the Committee to be able to explore the outstanding issues in more detail. However, there have been more questions than answers. The key issues include deliverability and the Arundel-by-pass is a critical factor. No-one denied that there would be at least 8 years traffic chaos.
A further key issue is the impact on Littlehampton and Bognor Regis - both housing and employment.
We queried ‘Why Ford?’ and established that the main factors are the strategic emphasis on development west of the River Arun, as well as the existing infrastructure in terms of waste, water, the railway and the river itself, together with the Atkins Study.
We have heard some strong local concern and opposition. The LSP are concerned about the process bypassing community involvement.
We heard with concern that the government is coming out with site specific planning policy advice as the eco-town procedure evolves, which may exclude public consultation.
Arun does have major problems - housing, employment, transport/accessibility and we want to probe further over the next days of the hearing whether the eco-town proposals can satisfactorily address these problems.
Inquiry supporting documents can be found here.
We have had a very interesting opening day and the context has been well set to enable the Committee to be able to explore the outstanding issues in more detail. However, there have been more questions than answers. The key issues include deliverability and the Arundel-by-pass is a critical factor. No-one denied that there would be at least 8 years traffic chaos.
A further key issue is the impact on Littlehampton and Bognor Regis - both housing and employment.
We queried ‘Why Ford?’ and established that the main factors are the strategic emphasis on development west of the River Arun, as well as the existing infrastructure in terms of waste, water, the railway and the river itself, together with the Atkins Study.
We have heard some strong local concern and opposition. The LSP are concerned about the process bypassing community involvement.
We heard with concern that the government is coming out with site specific planning policy advice as the eco-town procedure evolves, which may exclude public consultation.
Arun does have major problems - housing, employment, transport/accessibility and we want to probe further over the next days of the hearing whether the eco-town proposals can satisfactorily address these problems.
Inquiry supporting documents can be found here.
Let battle commence...
ECO-TOWN PROPOSAL - FORD, WEST SUSSEX
SUBMISSION TO ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL SELECT COMMITTEE
ON TUESDAY 27 MAY 2008
Introduction
1. I am joint Chairman of the local Communities Against Ford Eco-Town (CAFÉ) campaign and my purpose is to inform you and your Select Committee, that our campaign group, which has almost unanimous local support, believes very strongly that the Ford area is a totally inappropriate location for an Eco-Town. CAFÉ has been empowered to speak on behalf of the local communities in the district, namely: Arundel Town Council, Yapton, Ford and Clymping Parish Councils, Littlehampton Civic Society and Arundel Civic Society.
2. Let me start by saying that we welcome the DCLG’s consultation paper about Eco-Towns. We are not opposed to the concept of Eco-Towns per se, we are not opposed to housing and industrial development and we are not even opposed to development on green-field land. Thus please do not label us as a NIMBY group.
3. The two local Eco-Town submissions, which have been taken forward in the DCLG’s consultation paper are both misleading; being essentially elderly development proposals which have been given a hurried coat of green paint.
Development Proposals
4. The one from the Ford Airfield Vision Group is a dusted-off version of a proposal to the County Council, by Barton Willmore & Redrow Homes in year 2000, aimed at persuading the local planning authorities, that the building of a new market town at Ford would satisfy the housing needs of the whole of the southern part of West Sussex. We perceive the updated brochure to be a triumph of spin over substance, in an attempt to facilitate the sale for development, of a large amount of prime agricultural land.
5. The second, by the Ford Enterprise Hub, is a speculative and seemingly altruistic attempt launched in 2004, by three local Councillors, to divert attention from development to the west of Ford Airfield. Its’ prediction is that it will apparently and at a stroke, solve the transport, employment and housing problems from which Arun District suffers; but thereby avoiding the possibility of building on green-field land in or around other villages, further west of the Arun.
Eco-town Selection Criteria (DCLG)
6. CAFE opposes the proposal that Ford should be the site for an Eco-Town, because both the site and the proposals fail to satisfy many of the criteria set out by DCLG. In particular, our concerns relate to the following specified requirements:
a. Eco-Towns should be developed where there are good opportunities to make use of surplus public sector or brown-field land. However, the Ford site comprises some 350 hectares of private land and, of this, only 44 hectares (13%) are brown-field; the remaining 306 hectares (87%) being high quality, productive, agricultural land.
b. Eco-Towns must be places with a separate and distinct identity from existing towns and settlements. However the proposal would cause the coalescence of the small rural village of Yapton, with the even smaller hamlets of Ford and Clymping, would smother Walberton, Binsted and Bilsham and impinge heavily on the visually important wider Arun Valley and its clear access to the coast.
c. Eco-Town proposals should provide a good range of facilities within the town, including primary and secondary schools. However, “only” 5,000 dwellings would not generate sufficient secondary age children to warrant the development of a new secondary school and thus, this will be a traffic multiplier.
d. Eco-Towns are conceived as having their own retail centre(s), but in this case one would not be constructed (if at all) until the very late stages of the proposal, when generated profit might make it economically feasible. There will therefore be high dependence on off-site facilities; and hence more traffic.
e. Eco-Towns should facilitate the provision of affordable local housing to meet identified housing needs. However in this instance, the vast majority of the District’s housing need is concentrated in the towns of Littlehampton (1300) and Bognor Regis (1700); a need which would not be satisfied by the provision of housing in a rural setting several miles distant.
f. Eco-Towns should be resilient to predicted future climate change, and not be subject to flood risk. However the low-lying site at Ford is susceptible to coastal, fluvial and surface flooding, possibly simultaneously and there is a high risk of saline intrusion into the local water table, in due course; indeed the region has already been designated an “area of serious water stress” by DEFRA.
g. An Eco-Town should include mixed development, (including an employment zone). In this case, there is a speculative proposal for a ‘science park’ providing up to 4,000 ‘high-tech’ job opportunities. However there are already many local industrial units unfilled, both at Ford and in nearby Littlehampton & Bognor Regis and any such development - even it was possible without a nearby ‘high-tech’ university - would seriously hinder the planned re-generation of the two existing coastal towns.
h. An Eco-Town must be well placed in relation to existing towns. However the local roads around Ford are already heavily congested and forecast to get worse. An essential element of both proposals is the provision of an A27 Bypass at Arundel to deal with some of the existing congestion, but the Highways Agency scheme is not yet approved and, even if it could be started in the early part of the post-2016 timeframe, it is unlikely to be completed before 2020. Any significant development at Ford would seriously impinge on Arundel, Littlehampton and Bognor Regis, not to mention the natural rail hub at Barnham.
7. In summary, it is difficult to see on which key criteria the Ford site lends itself as an Eco-Town. The site will in effect swamp several small rural villages & settlements, use 350 hectares of high grade, predominantly green-field land (87%) and the area earmarked for business use is only proposed to be developed as and when market forces dictate. The area has severe infrastructure issues, in relation to highways & transport, there is limited demand for affordable housing in this particular part of rural West Sussex and there is restricted demand for employment in and around Ford. Thus our research leads us to conclude that the emphasis of this development proposal is simply to build houses, rather than to tackle the key issues and spirit inherent in the Government’s concept of an Eco-Town.
Conclusions of Past Planning Inspectors
8. This conclusion is backed up by government officials. As you will be aware, proposals to build houses on Ford Airfield have been mooted since year 2000; and have been considered by 3 separate Planning Inspectors, during the past 6 years, with the following results:
a. The Arun District Local Plan Inspector said, in 2002, that “the severe harm to the rural character of the locality, together with the serious sustainability drawbacks, outweighed any potential advantages of development”.
b. The West Sussex Structure Plan Inspector said, in 2003, that “as a whole the Ford Airfield area did not fall within the definition of brown field land, it was isolated and lacking in many existing facilities and it was not particularly well located for travel, other than by car, bearing in mind the lack of major facilities nearby”.
c. More lately, the South East Plan EIP Panel said, in 2007, that they “acknowledged local concern that the ability of this area, to accommodate large scale development, is inhibited by capacity problems on the A27, particularly at Arundel”.
Community Feedback
9. Having conducted several presentations, to over 1000 local residents, received some 5,000 petitions and communicated with several hundred local residents by email, we can categorically state that 98% of the local population rejects the Ford proposal as being unacceptable to the local community.
Summary
10. In summary, we have researched this matter deeply, as has Arun District Council to date, but CAFÉ as a non-constitutional body has had the advantage of unfettered access to the general public and its embedded skills, and several other non-governmental but expert bodies. From this research, we have concluded that we should be strongly opposed to the possibility of locating an Eco-Town at Ford. We therefore intend to present our case to the ADC Select Committee, and during the remainder of your Hearings, will show that this proposal, is not only non-viable, but positively harmful, in terms of planning, housing, business, transport, sustainability, energy consumption and climate change, to the District and surrounding community.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Knott MC FRSM
Co-chairman CAFÉ
SUBMISSION TO ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL SELECT COMMITTEE
ON TUESDAY 27 MAY 2008
Introduction
1. I am joint Chairman of the local Communities Against Ford Eco-Town (CAFÉ) campaign and my purpose is to inform you and your Select Committee, that our campaign group, which has almost unanimous local support, believes very strongly that the Ford area is a totally inappropriate location for an Eco-Town. CAFÉ has been empowered to speak on behalf of the local communities in the district, namely: Arundel Town Council, Yapton, Ford and Clymping Parish Councils, Littlehampton Civic Society and Arundel Civic Society.
2. Let me start by saying that we welcome the DCLG’s consultation paper about Eco-Towns. We are not opposed to the concept of Eco-Towns per se, we are not opposed to housing and industrial development and we are not even opposed to development on green-field land. Thus please do not label us as a NIMBY group.
3. The two local Eco-Town submissions, which have been taken forward in the DCLG’s consultation paper are both misleading; being essentially elderly development proposals which have been given a hurried coat of green paint.
Development Proposals
4. The one from the Ford Airfield Vision Group is a dusted-off version of a proposal to the County Council, by Barton Willmore & Redrow Homes in year 2000, aimed at persuading the local planning authorities, that the building of a new market town at Ford would satisfy the housing needs of the whole of the southern part of West Sussex. We perceive the updated brochure to be a triumph of spin over substance, in an attempt to facilitate the sale for development, of a large amount of prime agricultural land.
5. The second, by the Ford Enterprise Hub, is a speculative and seemingly altruistic attempt launched in 2004, by three local Councillors, to divert attention from development to the west of Ford Airfield. Its’ prediction is that it will apparently and at a stroke, solve the transport, employment and housing problems from which Arun District suffers; but thereby avoiding the possibility of building on green-field land in or around other villages, further west of the Arun.
Eco-town Selection Criteria (DCLG)
6. CAFE opposes the proposal that Ford should be the site for an Eco-Town, because both the site and the proposals fail to satisfy many of the criteria set out by DCLG. In particular, our concerns relate to the following specified requirements:
a. Eco-Towns should be developed where there are good opportunities to make use of surplus public sector or brown-field land. However, the Ford site comprises some 350 hectares of private land and, of this, only 44 hectares (13%) are brown-field; the remaining 306 hectares (87%) being high quality, productive, agricultural land.
b. Eco-Towns must be places with a separate and distinct identity from existing towns and settlements. However the proposal would cause the coalescence of the small rural village of Yapton, with the even smaller hamlets of Ford and Clymping, would smother Walberton, Binsted and Bilsham and impinge heavily on the visually important wider Arun Valley and its clear access to the coast.
c. Eco-Town proposals should provide a good range of facilities within the town, including primary and secondary schools. However, “only” 5,000 dwellings would not generate sufficient secondary age children to warrant the development of a new secondary school and thus, this will be a traffic multiplier.
d. Eco-Towns are conceived as having their own retail centre(s), but in this case one would not be constructed (if at all) until the very late stages of the proposal, when generated profit might make it economically feasible. There will therefore be high dependence on off-site facilities; and hence more traffic.
e. Eco-Towns should facilitate the provision of affordable local housing to meet identified housing needs. However in this instance, the vast majority of the District’s housing need is concentrated in the towns of Littlehampton (1300) and Bognor Regis (1700); a need which would not be satisfied by the provision of housing in a rural setting several miles distant.
f. Eco-Towns should be resilient to predicted future climate change, and not be subject to flood risk. However the low-lying site at Ford is susceptible to coastal, fluvial and surface flooding, possibly simultaneously and there is a high risk of saline intrusion into the local water table, in due course; indeed the region has already been designated an “area of serious water stress” by DEFRA.
g. An Eco-Town should include mixed development, (including an employment zone). In this case, there is a speculative proposal for a ‘science park’ providing up to 4,000 ‘high-tech’ job opportunities. However there are already many local industrial units unfilled, both at Ford and in nearby Littlehampton & Bognor Regis and any such development - even it was possible without a nearby ‘high-tech’ university - would seriously hinder the planned re-generation of the two existing coastal towns.
h. An Eco-Town must be well placed in relation to existing towns. However the local roads around Ford are already heavily congested and forecast to get worse. An essential element of both proposals is the provision of an A27 Bypass at Arundel to deal with some of the existing congestion, but the Highways Agency scheme is not yet approved and, even if it could be started in the early part of the post-2016 timeframe, it is unlikely to be completed before 2020. Any significant development at Ford would seriously impinge on Arundel, Littlehampton and Bognor Regis, not to mention the natural rail hub at Barnham.
7. In summary, it is difficult to see on which key criteria the Ford site lends itself as an Eco-Town. The site will in effect swamp several small rural villages & settlements, use 350 hectares of high grade, predominantly green-field land (87%) and the area earmarked for business use is only proposed to be developed as and when market forces dictate. The area has severe infrastructure issues, in relation to highways & transport, there is limited demand for affordable housing in this particular part of rural West Sussex and there is restricted demand for employment in and around Ford. Thus our research leads us to conclude that the emphasis of this development proposal is simply to build houses, rather than to tackle the key issues and spirit inherent in the Government’s concept of an Eco-Town.
Conclusions of Past Planning Inspectors
8. This conclusion is backed up by government officials. As you will be aware, proposals to build houses on Ford Airfield have been mooted since year 2000; and have been considered by 3 separate Planning Inspectors, during the past 6 years, with the following results:
a. The Arun District Local Plan Inspector said, in 2002, that “the severe harm to the rural character of the locality, together with the serious sustainability drawbacks, outweighed any potential advantages of development”.
b. The West Sussex Structure Plan Inspector said, in 2003, that “as a whole the Ford Airfield area did not fall within the definition of brown field land, it was isolated and lacking in many existing facilities and it was not particularly well located for travel, other than by car, bearing in mind the lack of major facilities nearby”.
c. More lately, the South East Plan EIP Panel said, in 2007, that they “acknowledged local concern that the ability of this area, to accommodate large scale development, is inhibited by capacity problems on the A27, particularly at Arundel”.
Community Feedback
9. Having conducted several presentations, to over 1000 local residents, received some 5,000 petitions and communicated with several hundred local residents by email, we can categorically state that 98% of the local population rejects the Ford proposal as being unacceptable to the local community.
Summary
10. In summary, we have researched this matter deeply, as has Arun District Council to date, but CAFÉ as a non-constitutional body has had the advantage of unfettered access to the general public and its embedded skills, and several other non-governmental but expert bodies. From this research, we have concluded that we should be strongly opposed to the possibility of locating an Eco-Town at Ford. We therefore intend to present our case to the ADC Select Committee, and during the remainder of your Hearings, will show that this proposal, is not only non-viable, but positively harmful, in terms of planning, housing, business, transport, sustainability, energy consumption and climate change, to the District and surrounding community.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Knott MC FRSM
Co-chairman CAFÉ
Econtradiction
I have invented a new word - Econtradiction, a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another regarding eco-town proposals. I like that!
Monday 26 May 2008
Ford in the National press again!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2022018/Labour-scheme-may-become-its-poll-tax-crunch.html#continue
Another piece featuring Ford - and another thanks to Bruce Fogle for getting this sham into the public eye!
Another piece featuring Ford - and another thanks to Bruce Fogle for getting this sham into the public eye!
New signs available
At last, some CAFE logo'd signs are available - weatherproof and about the size of an estate agent's board.
Get them from Susan on the usual CAFE number 01903 714528 or via http://www.nofordecotown.com/ - let's hope to see a lot more signs going up locally as we head towards the march on 7 June!
Get them from Susan on the usual CAFE number 01903 714528 or via http://www.nofordecotown.com/ - let's hope to see a lot more signs going up locally as we head towards the march on 7 June!
How puddles form...
The Downview Estate has a big puddle today... Of course this never use to happen, but since people have started concreting over their front gardens the problem has became worse. The drain cannot cope anymore. If an Eco Town is built on the land north of Ford Road there will be a serious risk of flooding the railway line, because the land slopes down. Our little puddle demonstrates this nicely...
Jimmy Young on our side!
Good to see the Ford Eco Town con featuring in the Sunday Express yesterday!
http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/ourcomments/view/45628/Jimmy-Young
And a big thanks to Bruce Fogle for getting this piece in the paper!
I really wonder if there might just be a glimmer in the Prime Minister's mind to wake him to the fact that this might be one unpopular policy too far? He claims to be listening - I wonder if he is?
http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/ourcomments/view/45628/Jimmy-Young
And a big thanks to Bruce Fogle for getting this piece in the paper!
I really wonder if there might just be a glimmer in the Prime Minister's mind to wake him to the fact that this might be one unpopular policy too far? He claims to be listening - I wonder if he is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)