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
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.
Keep Kempton Green