Fair’s fair

unbalanced

Dear Neighbour

You may already have read our opinion (in a recent Sunbury Matters)  on “Stakeholder Events” (aka Local Plan Forums), one of which we attended as part of the consultation on the hugely increased housing need calculated by Spelthorne’s and Runnymede’s consultants. Those housing need figures in the Draft SHMA Report were:

Spelthorne 543 to 725   new houses per annum
Runnymede 459 to 525   new houses per annum

(Spelthorne’s current housing target, by way of comparison, is 166 new houses per annum.)

That Stakeholder Event was completely dominated by developers, planning consultants, architects and the rest – all prepared to do their damndest to make sure as many houses are built in the two Boroughs as possible. The record of submissions from those who attended that Stakeholder Event has now been made public.

The following organisations said that the housing need figures were, for various reasons, too low:

CgMs Planning Consultants on behalf of the Kitewood Group
Terence O’Rourke on behalf of M&G Real Estate
Barton Willmore on behalf of Crest Nicholson
Barton Willmore on behalf of Explore Living
Boyer on behalf of the Ashill Group
NLP Planning on behalf of Terence O’Rourke
Paul Dickinson & Associates on behalf of Lafarge Tarmac
Quod Planning
White Young Green on behalf of European Urban Developments

(Terence O’Rourke are also leading the planning for the Kempton Park development.)

The following made submissions offering particular sites for housing development:

Martin Leay on behalf of Kin Too Holdings
Design Planning on behalf of Barrsbrook Cattery
Nigel Moor on behalf of CABI

We now also have the Final SHMA Report. Guess what? The housing need figures have been increased:

Spelthorne 552 to 757   new houses per annum
Runnymede 466 to 535   new houses per annum

You may also have heard that a Development Market Panel will be set up to rule on the development status of land. Borough Planning Officers will sit on this Panel, as well as developers, those with land interests, land promoters, local property agents, and registered providers. Residents, however (or any expert they engage) will not be allowed to be privy to the goings-on of the Development Market Panel, because residents, and any expert they engage, would be biased – they say.

In view of the bias shown by the consultants, developers and land owners in the list above, we would dearly like to trust that they too will be banned from being part of the Development Market Panel. Fair’s fair, right?

But we’re not holding our collective breath.

Kind regards

Keep Kempton Green

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s