30,000 houses - Yate Public Meeting slides

1,542 views

Published on

Slides of Steve Webb MP's public meeting about 30,000 new houses in South Glos, particularly impact on Yate & Chipping Sodbury

Published in: Real Estate, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,542
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

30,000 houses - Yate Public Meeting slides

  1. 1. South West ‘Regional Spatial Strategy’ Implications for Yate & Chipping Sodbury
  2. 2. 1. The Story So Far <ul><li>June 2006: Draft Strategy for the South West region from 2006-2026 prepared by South West Regional Assembly & published for consultation </li></ul><ul><li>April – July 2007: Draft RSS subject to ‘Examination in Public’ by independent panel </li></ul><ul><li>January 2008: Panel changes published </li></ul><ul><li>July 2008: Secretary of State’s proposed changes published </li></ul><ul><li>October 2008: Deadline for responses </li></ul>
  3. 3. 2. The overall story <ul><li>Government seeks 3 million new homes in GB between 2006-2026 </li></ul><ul><li>Latest RSS proposes 592,000 in South West, of which approx. 200,000 would be ‘affordable’ </li></ul><ul><li>Key drivers of South West figures are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A) ageing population & smaller households </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B) economic growth at 3.2% pa drawing in people from elsewhere in UK </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. 3. The South Glos. figures 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Additional houses 2006-2026 South Glos estimate Draft RSS Panel Report SoS changes
  5. 5. The historical perspective <ul><li>Extra houses in South Glos 1986-2006 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>27,000 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This includes all of Bradley Stoke and most of Emersons Green </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Extra houses now proposed 2006-2026 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>32,800 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Equivalent of nearly 4 more Bradley Stokes </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. 4. Where would the 32,800 go? <ul><li>Within existing urban area: 17,500 (was 15,500) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Urban Extensions’ (or ‘green fields’) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Area of Search 1C (to East of Urban Bristol) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>8,000 (was 8,000 for C+D) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Area of Search 1D (area around M32) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2,000 (was 8,000 for C+D) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Area of Search 1E (Yate/Sodbury) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3,000 (was 5,000) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Remainder of District: 2,300 (unchanged) </li></ul>
  7. 7. 5. What about the Green Belt? <ul><li>“The general extent of the Bristol and Bath Green Belt will be maintained subject to the following alterations: </li></ul><ul><li>Removal of the green belt to accommodate urban extensions at Areas of Search 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1F and 1G” </li></ul><ul><li>(Latest draft RSS p75) </li></ul>
  8. 8. How to have your say <ul><li>Consultation on the “Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes” to the draft RSS opened on 22 nd July and closes on 24 th October </li></ul><ul><li>Steve Webb MP to lead only Parliamentary scrutiny of document in Westminster debate on 7 th October </li></ul><ul><li>Online petition at www.stevewebb.org.uk </li></ul>
  9. 9. Responding to the consultation <ul><li>1. Must be on the official form and submitted to ‘Government Office of the South West’ (GOSW) – can be done on paper or online </li></ul><ul><li>2. Must refer to specific elements of the proposals – separate form for each policy you are commenting on </li></ul><ul><li>3. Must be about latest changes </li></ul><ul><li>4. If possible, tell them something they don’t already know – local knowledge v. important </li></ul>
  10. 10. Key areas for comment <ul><li>‘ West of England’ (ie former Avon area) is known as Housing Market Area 1. So comments should be about “Policy HMA1”. </li></ul><ul><li>We need to oppose the plan for 3,000 houses in ‘area of search 1E’ – ie urban extension of Yate/Chipping Sodbury </li></ul>
  11. 11. Comments from ‘Sustainability Appraisal’ <ul><li>‘ There are aspects [of the Proposed Changes RSS] that cause us significant concern. The most obvious change is the significant increase in the housing numbers planned for the region’ (p5) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Indirect impacts [on]..natural and historic landscapes..biodiversity...from noise, light and air pollution associated with increased population, new development and traffic’ (p6) </li></ul><ul><li>‘ ..the high level of economic growth upon which the Proposed Changes RSS is based is now unlikely…’ (p7) </li></ul>
  12. 13. What do we put on our form? <ul><li>HMA 1, area of search 1 E </li></ul><ul><li>We are responding to her decision to reduce the number for area 1E (us) from 5000 to 3000 </li></ul><ul><li>We must NOT support that – or she will think we support 3000. </li></ul><ul><li>We must tick the box to OPPOSE the reduction to 3000 because it does not go far enough </li></ul><ul><li>We must SAY why we object </li></ul><ul><li>And what we WANT instead - nothing, apart from ‘windfall sites’ </li></ul>
  13. 14. Also object to: <ul><li>The deletion of linked transport schemes </li></ul><ul><li>The failure to impose obligations to provide infrastructure in advance of the house </li></ul><ul><li>The deletion of the Green Belt extensions – ask for them to be put back in </li></ul><ul><li>- but each objection has to be on a different form!!! </li></ul>
  14. 15. Remember it is not just our 3000 <ul><li>Remember to also object to the increase to 32,800 for the whole of South Gloucestershire. </li></ul><ul><li>Wherever those houses go, it will mean gridlock, so we can’t stand alone here </li></ul><ul><li>Also </li></ul><ul><li>Object to the plan’s restrictive approach to the Mall </li></ul><ul><li>Object to the dilution of the sustainable construction and renewables policies in the plan </li></ul>
  15. 16. If you have time - some more objections <ul><li>Object to the plan to go for an early, partial review. </li></ul><ul><li>Object to the level of detail in the RSS. </li></ul><ul><li>Object to the fact local people were not allowed to give evidence to the Panel but developers were. </li></ul>
  16. 17. Suggested issues to raise <ul><li>Impact on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transport / traffic esp. re commuting? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Environment (eg pollution, loss of green space, landscape issues) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure (eg public services – Frenchay?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Climate change impacts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flooding / drainage issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>community identity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Agricultural land </li></ul></ul>
  17. 18. What does 3000 houses mean for Yate/Sodbury?
  18. 19. Where will they go? <ul><li>The Panel and the Minister don’t say exactly where they should go. </li></ul><ul><li>South Gloucestershire Council is left to do the dirty work. </li></ul><ul><li>If they don’t the developers will decide and get consent on appeal direct from the Minister. </li></ul>
  19. 20. Where might they look? <ul><li>Green Belt </li></ul><ul><li>AONB </li></ul><ul><li>Existing Quarry works and consents (grey hatch on previous slide) </li></ul><ul><li>Common land (red hatch on previous slide) </li></ul><ul><li>Sports fields aren’t protected </li></ul><ul><li>Costs of roads over railway lines </li></ul><ul><li>So, build to the north of Yate – and Chipping Sodbury?…… </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>BUT – is there room? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 21. Yate - Area needed for 3000 dwellings 3000 dwellings 40 per hectare = 75 hectares* * Excludes area needed for additional schools, employment etc Area = 75 ha Area = 36 ha
  21. 22. Chipping Sodbury – Area needed for 3000 Dwellings 3000 dwellings 40 per hectare = 75 hectares* * Excludes area needed for additional schools, employment etc
  22. 23. Traffic issues <ul><li>4000 cars </li></ul><ul><li>68.4% of Yate workers drive to work </li></ul><ul><li>46% of Yate workers commute out of Yate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>mainly to North Fringe and Bristol </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No proposals for new roads to Bristol / M4/M5 or WITHIN town </li></ul><ul><li>Object to this failure to provide for major road improvements </li></ul>Is it possible to get 4000 more cars in and out of our area?
  23. 24. <ul><li>Transport links are our biggest card. Say as much as you can about how awful our road links are – particularly in the rush hours. </li></ul><ul><li>We are about the only town this size without a bypass – ours runs THROUGH the town centre. </li></ul><ul><li>Remember to talk about congestion IN Yate </li></ul><ul><ul><li>particularly round the shopping centre on a Saturday or rush hour in Station Road. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>remind the Government there is no space to improve the roads in the centre of town, so they can’t buy their way to a solution for the town centre. </li></ul></ul>
  24. 25. Public transport <ul><li>The Panel proposed no improvement in public transport, except improvements to the train service from Yate Station </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yet 1.5% of Yate workers travel to work by train </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The Secretary of State has DELETED any requirement for public transport improvements. Object to this. </li></ul><ul><li>Stress the need for the Station improvement AND a park and ride in Yate as essentials </li></ul>
  25. 26. Scale and pace of growth <ul><li>20% growth in size of Yate/Sodbury </li></ul><ul><li>Now until 2026 </li></ul><ul><li>Local Development Framework to be produced </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Site search & Master plan </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Works starting 2010? </li></ul><ul><li>Can we insist roads and services put in FIRST? </li></ul><ul><li>3000 houses in max 16 years = 200/year </li></ul><ul><li>Impact of new building on housing prices? </li></ul><ul><li>Requires a far higher completion rate than our community can handle. We need a longer breathing space to settle down before we get more rapid growth. </li></ul>
  26. 27. What sort of housing? <ul><li>Government says – at least 40 dwellings per hectare </li></ul><ul><li>What does that look like? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Brookthorpe Court is 50/hectare </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>14 flats on The Lawns Car Park = 70/hectare </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Brimsham Park c 15/hectare </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Too dense </li></ul></ul>
  27. 28. What types of housing <ul><li>1/3 affordable housing (social housing) </li></ul><ul><li>Market led </li></ul><ul><li>Relatively little ability to control type within overall totals </li></ul><ul><li>“ Better by Design” (DCLG ) gives an idea of the current design styles </li></ul><ul><li>Minister has insisted that a higher percentage of what is built is ‘Affordable’. Welcome that. </li></ul>
  28. 29. Employment <ul><li>NO mention of specific employment provision </li></ul><ul><li>Talks about employment in Bristol, Bath and Weston, then says – that’s for the local council to sort out </li></ul><ul><li>Either allocate an industrial zone the size of Stover Road OR extra commuting – no surplus jobs locally </li></ul><ul><li>Comment that if we stand any chance of coping with the traffic, we need to ensure local jobs for local people – a FULL range of job types – and not low density uses that burn up land and generate heavy lorries on our congested roads. </li></ul>
  29. 30. Water & Sewage <ul><li>Flood risks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Grounds for resisting? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The following maps from the Environment Agency show the 1 in 75 year flood risk. This level of flood risk on the Severnside Area has led to it being rejected as a development zone – so why not here too? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Sewage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- developers will have to pay for sewage improvements – is there capacity? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Surface water </li></ul><ul><ul><li>flooding downstream – capable of solution? </li></ul></ul>
  30. 33. <ul><li>Object to the proposals because so much of the area immediately adjoining Yate/Sodbury lies in a high flood risk area, as defined by the Environment Agency. </li></ul><ul><li>Mention the high water table </li></ul><ul><li>We are not prepared to have housing on those flood areas – or community facilities or open space </li></ul><ul><li>Object because of sewage capacity </li></ul>
  31. 34. Schools for 3000 houses <ul><li>Approx 600 primary places and 600 secondary </li></ul><ul><li>Surplus places currently </li></ul><ul><ul><li>primary 500 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Secondary 300 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Developers will have to fund expansion at one secondary and 1 primary </li></ul><ul><li>Displacement effects south-westwards </li></ul>
  32. 35. ‘ Strengthened role as a service centre’ <ul><li>We will get either land, buildings or money towards the facilities that the new houses will need. </li></ul><ul><li>We will NOT get anything ‘extra’ </li></ul><ul><li>Object to the fact we will not get facilities we need – mention which ones YOU care about most. </li></ul><ul><li>No evidence whatsoever that more houses will bring in more services – it will put more pressure on what we have. </li></ul><ul><li>Their national sums about what size of community attracts what services don’t work here because of the ‘Bristol effect’. </li></ul>
  33. 36. <ul><li>Shops, Libraries, Sports Centre, </li></ul><ul><li>Explain our town centre is full – there is no room for the extra facilities we would need . </li></ul><ul><li>Object to the housing going here, given the Frenchay decision means our nearest A&E and hospital will be at Southmead, which can take over an hour to reach between 7-10am and 4-6.30pm </li></ul><ul><li>Complete lack of entertainment facilities - Cinema / nightclub/bowling etc must be condition we get these if we get housing </li></ul>Other facilities
  34. 37. Open space <ul><li>‘ needs assessment’ not strict quota, but </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Approx 40 acres of sports fields </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Approx 40 acres of informal open space </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In total = 2/3 size of Yate Common </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Object to the change in scale of our town, which will put pressure on the open spaces within the town – need over the quota to prevent it moving from small town in the countryside to urban extension </li></ul><ul><li>Object to the loss of access to the countryside resulting from the urban sprawl (remind them that to the south and west railway lines block our access so north and east are the only ways we can get out to the country) </li></ul>
  35. 38. What to do next <ul><li>Find the form on line at: http://gosw.limehouse.co.uk/file/332012 </li></ul><ul><li>Fill in a paper copy </li></ul><ul><li>Use our ‘specimen as a guide – put it in your own words. </li></ul><ul><li>Sign our petition here or at: www.stevewebb.org.uk </li></ul>

×