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
Thursday, 26 March 2009
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...
Damage warning over eco-town plan
Building an eco-town at Ford will damage the South Downs, an environmental group has warned. The South Downs Society said the intended 5,000 home development at the former airfield site would have a major damaging impact. It would cause the loss of high quality farmland, lead to an increased flood risk, damage existing villages and negatively affect efforts to regenerate Bognor and Littlehampton. Click for more...
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Study finds just two eco-towns are viable
he financial viability of the government’s planned eco-town programme has been called into question by a new report which gave only two of the proposals a glowing bill of health. Research, commissioned and published by the Communities and Local Government department, found significant question marks remained in six out of the eight schemes examined. Click for more...
A better way to treat our aviation heritage
A friend has pointed me to the following link http://www.stowmaries.com/about.html
It is good to see that some farming families who own old RAF airfields have found better things to do with them. In this case, the airfield is being restored and a museum built to celebrate its part in WWI. The workshops are going to be restored and used again for high tech engineering - all done in a sympathetic way. The new owners are working in conjunction with local wildlife charities to encourage even greater diversity on the restored land.
If only the owners of Ford had felt a greater respect for the land they own and the communities who surround it.
It is good to see that some farming families who own old RAF airfields have found better things to do with them. In this case, the airfield is being restored and a museum built to celebrate its part in WWI. The workshops are going to be restored and used again for high tech engineering - all done in a sympathetic way. The new owners are working in conjunction with local wildlife charities to encourage even greater diversity on the restored land.
If only the owners of Ford had felt a greater respect for the land they own and the communities who surround it.
Ford (prison) in the news for the wrong reasons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7939048.stm
No eco town news I can find, so here's a link to the neighbours!
No eco town news I can find, so here's a link to the neighbours!
Monday, 9 March 2009
FInancially viable - I don't think so!
Let's face it, our politicians do not have a good record of financial judgement recently. So taking time off from failing to regulate the banks, they have now published a Financial Viability assessment of the proposed eco town sites.
For Ford they say "The promoter is also yet to fully develop their rail strategy for the project; but initial proposals suggest the provision of a new station or loop, and an adjacent parking facility of 500 spaces" Now like me you are probably struggling with this - I thought they said there'd be community transport and cycling - now there are 500 cars! How eco is that! "The proposer has costed this at £2.5 million." The document then goes on to say that they think this figure is too little, and that more money should be provided for the station and EVEN MORE PARKING!
Revealing yet more of the eco fakery going on here, and the inconsistencies within the swathes of documentation coming out of the DCLG and the Ford Airfield Vision Group, in this particular report the ROADS ARE BACK!
"At the time of writing the promoter has not proposed a transport solution for addressing the impact the development could have on local roads and the strategic network that is acceptable to the Department for Transport/Highways Agency" - yes we've been saying that for nearly a year now!! However they are proposing to spend £41 million on roads! That link to the A27 is back - in this document at least! Oh, and the one to the A259!
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1165892.pdf
Honestly - this is farcical! And at the end of this, incredibly, they conclude that the scheme has the potential to be financially viable! Presumably, these are the same people who thought that our financial system was in a robust health not many months ago!
For Ford they say "The promoter is also yet to fully develop their rail strategy for the project; but initial proposals suggest the provision of a new station or loop, and an adjacent parking facility of 500 spaces" Now like me you are probably struggling with this - I thought they said there'd be community transport and cycling - now there are 500 cars! How eco is that! "The proposer has costed this at £2.5 million." The document then goes on to say that they think this figure is too little, and that more money should be provided for the station and EVEN MORE PARKING!
Revealing yet more of the eco fakery going on here, and the inconsistencies within the swathes of documentation coming out of the DCLG and the Ford Airfield Vision Group, in this particular report the ROADS ARE BACK!
"At the time of writing the promoter has not proposed a transport solution for addressing the impact the development could have on local roads and the strategic network that is acceptable to the Department for Transport/Highways Agency" - yes we've been saying that for nearly a year now!! However they are proposing to spend £41 million on roads! That link to the A27 is back - in this document at least! Oh, and the one to the A259!
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1165892.pdf
Honestly - this is farcical! And at the end of this, incredibly, they conclude that the scheme has the potential to be financially viable! Presumably, these are the same people who thought that our financial system was in a robust health not many months ago!
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Rise of the NIMBY!
I'm going to make a t-shirt for this story in the FT today... Attitudes have hardened against new property development despite the promise of new jobs that could be created in the recession. The study says that Nimbyism - the acronym of Not In My Back Yard used to describe opposition by local residents - is on the rise across the country.
Some 85 per cent of respondents say they would oppose development in their local area, broadly the same level as last year's survey, but active Nimbyism has almost doubled in the past two years. Clicke here for more glorious NIMBYism!
Some 85 per cent of respondents say they would oppose development in their local area, broadly the same level as last year's survey, but active Nimbyism has almost doubled in the past two years. Clicke here for more glorious NIMBYism!
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
MPs criticise housing department
A major Whitehall department lacks the skills needed to put vital policies into operation, MPs have said. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had taken only "the first steps" towards a reasonable performance for taxpayers, they added. Ecotowns, home sellers' packs, and regional fire control centres had suffered as a result, the communities and local government committee said. Click here for more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)