Mike Causey – Wrecclesham and Rowledge
Waverley Borough CouncillorArchive for Housing
Have Your Say on Housing
Earlier this year Waverley undertook their statutory obligation to conduct an assessment of land potentially available for housing at some point in the future. It caused not a little consternation in Farnham, as it appeared in the local press as if all this land was planned for development. That was not the case at all, but once something is out there in the public’s perception, it’s difficult to change.
However, since that assessment, the new government have abolished housing targets, and thus local authorities are now free to determine their own requirements in consultation with local residents and stakeholders. Hence, a four week process opened on the 15th September including some opportunities to hear presentations on possible plans.
Here’s an extract from the planning department about the process:
In the South East Plan, Waverley’s housing target was set at 250 homes a year from 2006 to 2026. The Coalition Government has recently removed nationally and regionally imposed house building targets. Instead local councils like Waverley are now allowed to work with their communities to further understand how many homes should be built in their area.
The council has developed three options it wants the public’s views on. There is also the opportunity for everyone in the community to put forward their own suggestions. The three options being considered in the consultation are:
- a number based on the South East Plan – 230 to 250 homes a year
- a number based on an estimate of land available to build homes on – probably in the region of between 150 and 200 homes a year
- a number based on the need and demand for homes in Waverley – the number of homes that could be required to be built could be 300 a year or more
Further details on the consultation, including an extensive technical paper, will be available at Waverley’s website ( http://consult.waverley.gov.uk )
If you need to discuss any part of this e-mail please call 01483 523417.
Trying hard
I’m trying hard to like Mike Simpson (Lib Dem PPC for South West Surrey). I’ve never met him, and I honestly imagine that he’s striving to do good things for the local community and stand up for policies he believes in.
But when he writes letters to the Herald like the one this week, that ignores the facts and focusses on invented conspiracy, I’m struggling.
My councillor colleagues Carole Cockburn and Rogers Steele wrote clearly and truthfully last week about the ‘strategic housing land availability assessment’ that indicates that according to law and likely planning issues, additional houses could be build in Badshot Lea. They very clearly stated that this was categorically not a party political document – it is required and prepared by the local authority, and a high proportion of all councillors will note its contents which much consternation.
Mr Simpson is accurate to say that the council has a dreadful track record with regards to processing planning applications: it does. But it also has an improved performance over the past year since new planning leadership was introduced. And in any case, this performance doesn’t directly influence whether such an land availability assessment ends up as reality.
Closed doors? Tory policy? Mr Simpson is using conjecture and spin to try and stretch out this issue. Why doesn’t he instead articulate the way in which he believes that a local councillor (of any political persuasion) should oppose any such development in the future. Give some specific advice on how this document can be shown to be unacceptable and argued against.
This would help much more than his weak attempts to pin some imagined hidden agenda on the Conservative group at Waverley.
What is immorality?
A philosophical question if ever I heard one, but one which was voiced during the council meeting last night.
Councillor Pritchard spoke from deep conviction when he questioned the appropriateness of using the word ‘immoral’ in part of the new Secure Tenancy Agreement, seeking to understand how it is possible to agree on what is or is not, moral, in such a plural society of ours.
Whilst I do not agree with him, I do laud the intent of his comments. I agree with the objective of allaying tenants’ fears (some of which stem from the use of this word), but do not agree that we should remove the word.
The tenancy agreement is actually full of subjective words and terms that require interpretation and opinion, especially in the context of any process that might culminate in eviction, prosecution, or both.
In this instance, we are talking about a word that I believe continues to have important currency in our language and society. Of course, we could get bogged down in an etymological exercise and probably acrimonious disagreement, but instead, let’s recognise that abandonment of words and meaning due to a postmodern sincerity of intent is a weak way to find common ground and ultimately leads to anarchy, as everyone will claim the rightness of their own interpretation of law and behaviour and, we will have no means to govern.
Thistledown Close
It almost sounds like a barn dance, but it’s actually the proposed name for the new close at the former site of 24 / 26 Pottery Lane. The development is coming along and so an application has been made for the new road name: Thistledown Close.
Apparently (and I’m learning this on the job) it’s our council policy not to object except “on the grounds of duplication, difficulty of pronouncing or spelling or if the name could cause offence”. Looks to me like none of that applies and overall, it sounds quite nice.
Please let me know if you have any objection, or ring the council direct and ask to speak to Lorraine Wilson.
Farnham Water Meadows
Received a short but informative email this evening from a local resident keenly involved in the recently initiated campaign to ‘save’ the Farnham Water Meadows. The campaign was started by local solicitor Jo Aylwin, in response to the land being put up for sale by its present owners.
I say ‘save’ in inverted commas, as it isn’t under any particular threat at the moment, and, as although it looks like a developer’s dream, it’s actually protected by a number of planning policies that comprise a perfect storm of protection from housing. Mind you, one thing it could work as is a SANG in order to allow house building elsewhere nearby (within 5km of the Thames Basin Heath SPA). So I suppose that speculatively one could say that the campaign aims to save the meadows for public use (which has become a defacto right under present ownership) and, potentially save Farnham from more housing development. That’s just my take on it mind you.
I fully support the campaign to take it into public ownership and would love to see it specifically available as common land for the people of Farnham. My comments above are simply to be clear about its present circumstances.
So, planning policies:
Flood Zone 2
Flood Zone 3
Conservation Area (No. 15 – FARNHAM)
Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area 5km Buffer
Walden Heaths SPA 5km Buffer
Area subject to special advertisement control
Policy TC10 – Green Envelope
Policy C2 – Countryside Beyond the Green Belt
Policy C5 – Area of Strategic Visual Importance
Policy C10 – Site of Nature Conservation Importance
An eco-town? A zero-sum game
How is it possible that a decision to create an eco-town in Bordon/Whitehill can be seen as environmentally friendly option, when it will destroy the life and fabric of nearby villages such as Wrecclesham?
The traffic that will pour through our village on completion (and of construction traffic during) of the town will wreak havoc on the nature of village life, and literally eat away at our buildings through the increased pollution and traffic vibration which occurs. This may not be noticeable in a year, or perhaps even two, but give it a few more, and we will see the degradation of the quality of our village life.
I do hope, and will be lobbying, for a Conservative change of policy once in government next year.
Build one small town. Destroy a few villages. A zero-sum game.
Sad
Very sad to hear that Pat Wright has stood down as Chair of the Waverley Tenants’ Panel. I always enjoyed working with her, and hope to see her soon to say thanks in person.
