Residents' Association Forum

STRATEGIC HOUSING & LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT

SETTLEMENT 'INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT' PLANS

Context is described in 'Residents Association  - NEWS - Planning ' on pages 7&8 Thames Ditton Today Winter 2012 (pdf from:)
http://residents-association.com/magazine.php

There is much more detail on the Elmbridge Planning Policy pages including Elmbridge Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment at :

http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/policy/SHLAAsum.htm 

and details of the ‘promoted’ sites at :

http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/detail.htm?pk_document=22191 . 

These documents have been generated alongside ‘Settlement Investment Development Plans’  - see http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/policy/IDPlans.htm, which are yet to be revealed, but which will “support the delivery and management of development that provides the required level of growth and can be supported by improved infrastructure and services.”

See http://residents-association.com/forum/index.php?topic=788.0 which details some of the proposals in the draft SID.  Together with my further comments there, right now.

Thanks for that, Leafy.  The consultation was delayed because the Residents' councillors "called in" the imperfectly staffed and compiled planning documents for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 7 March.  I await info on how that went.

The challenges and opportunities were outlined in the article 'Planning Reforms -The Threats' by Cllr. Ruth Lyon in Thames Ditton Today Winter 2011  ! http://residents-association.com/tdt_pdfs/winter2011.php

.....and now there are just 4 weeks left before 'consultation' begins !

I don't feel at all prepared.....am I alone in this respect ? do other members of the community know more ?

Neither do I.  I'm just about to upload the pdf of the latest TD Today in which Sandra Dennis writes on the subject.  But I believe we are waiting for the final documentation which is to go to consultation.  Then I would expect several knowledgeable people including you of course to go over the lot, decide what points need to be highlighted in particular, and address them to residents on this website and however else we can at the beginning of the consultation (8 April), so that the "community say" is maximised.  

There are PDF  Notes titled 'Call in Report - OS - 070313'  at http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/Elmbridge%20Borough%20Council/Committees/Call%20in%20Report%20-%20OS%20-%20070313.pdf

Right.  I have been doing some digging with councillors and by telephone to the Elmbridge Planning policy desk.

The EBC Overview & Scrutiny Cttee to which Residents' councillors called in the documents for scrutiny (for they contained several holes, it seems) decided to pass them unchanged.  There is some urgency to get the local plan into place, as you will have gathered from the national press.  Passing them unchanged means that the earlier Cabinet/Council decisions to put them to public consultation stand and there will be no need to convene a special meeting to pass a different set.

The documents for the Development Management Plan and SIDs to be put to public consultation are therefore those that went to Cabinet as annexes on 13 February.  For ease of reference here are links to download them:

draft Development Management Plan (http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/Elmbridge%20Borough%20Council/Committees/Mgmt%20Plan%20-%20CBNT%20-%20130213.pdf)

draft SIDs (http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/Elmbridge%20Borough%20Council/Committees/ID%20Sites%20-%20Main%20Document.pdf) - the one for our area starts on page 64 of 238 pages.

Please note that responses from the public before the commencement of the period for public consultation, scheduled for 8 April, WILL NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.  It is therefore important that residents hold fire until the period for consultation has officially opened.

Meanwhile: our councillors are poring over the details and also (in the case of the immensely experienced Ruth Lyon) reading what adjacent councils have done: I gather from Ruth that the draft management plan prepared by Richmond Council is much better in many ways and contains some points that might usefully be worked in to ours somehow.  There should also be some exchange of views between TD, WG, Hinchley Wood and possibly LD which are all in the same SID area delineated by the planning staff.  Lastly, planning officers intend to arrange meetings with ward councillors before the consultation opens.

If Leafy or any other residents would read the draft documents in detail and have particular points or suggestions to make please feed them by email into our ward councillors for digestion.  The intention is to produce a clear summary of points to watch, especially those that are likely to be controversial and give grounds for objection, and points to be added, and circulate to residents early in the consultation period so that individuals may write in to add their weight to these matters.  Individuals' appetite for these documents is likely to be limited so it will be important to concentrate on a few, but important, points rather than add to the enormous pile of material put out by the council planners.  And, I repeat, while ammunition is most welcome it is important to hold fire until the consultation season opens.

Meanwhile the situation before a full Local Plan is adopted here is not thought to be nearly as bad as painted in the Telegraph.  For one thing, the Elmbridge Core Strategy is already approved by the Secretary of State and in place.  It will govern applications made.  For another, developers have been rather more keen to get applications in before 1 April, after which date Community Infrastructure Levy becomes payable, and I am told there is no sign of a flock of development locusts hovering to get applications in during what the Telegraph is portraying as a free-for-all under the National Policy Planning Framework before a Local Plan is in place.  Many councils are lobbying the SoS to extend the wholly unrealistic timescale within which Local Plans are supposed to be adopted - a process that most think takes more like two years than one.

I hope that's all helpful.

Spring issue of the mag now uploaded.  Sandra's article starts on page 17

The formal consultation opened yesterday, 8 April, and closes on 20 May.

I've put the matter up as our splash item on the home page.

More follows when a small team from the Association Executive has gone through the detail this weekend, when I hope they will notify me of a short list of points residents might wish to consider raising with Elmbridge before the consultation closes.

Meanwhile I suggest that if you are interested in how and where developments might be coming to a place next to you, you look through these long documents (especially the SID - link from home page) and raise concerns here or direct with Sandra Dennis (TD) or Tannia Shipley (WG) or Simon Munro (environment).  You may wish to leave the formal act of submitting comment to Elmbridge until more views and suggestions are in.

I read in this document that one of the proposed development sites is the public area of land by Ash Path opposite the end of the Dell, and includes the garages rented to the residents of Longmead Road. This area was fenced by Elmbridge Housing Trust on the pretext that it was at risk of being used by travellers.
I certainly will be responding personally. Over the next two weekends I am going to leaflet Longmead Rd and door knock to see how other residents feel and will commit to letting our local councillors and the residents association know. If anyone would like to let me know via here please leave a message on this forum or private message me.

It is probably a good idea for you to get Longmead residents to write in stressing opposition to future development of that bit of land, but I note that the SID says:
"4.3 At the workshop sites at Longmead Road and Granchester House, Hinchley
Way were suggested by some as having potential for development. These have been
examined but are not considered to be large enough to warrant allocation within the
plan."

As it thus appears to be off the menu, I don't think the RA will be mentioning that one in its response, which will focus on the critical areas of the documents.

Planner Mark Behrendt told me that after responses are in, the EBC planners will finalise the draft "taking into account" responses, and that final draft will again be put to the public before it is sent to the government's examiner for approval and adoption.  So we'll get a further chance to monitor it.

Please see home page then new planning consultation page (http://residents-association.com/planning_consultation.php) on this website.

You will recall last year's highly controversial consultation on a draft Development Management Plan and its associated Settlement Investment and Development Plan which last included the proposal for a massive housing development on the floodplain at the foot of the Old Paulines' (Colets) playing fields.

We flagged up the Council's intention to recirculate the plan for final public comments before submitting it to Government for approval.

That consultation is now happening.  You have until  17 March 2014 to comment online and how to do so, plus the documents concerned, is at: 
http://consult.elmbridge.gov.uk/consult.ti/DMProposedSub/consultationHome

I note that the controversial Settlement Investment and Development Plan, containing the Pauline proposal, is not being recirculated and unless otherwise informed, one must assume that that plan stands together with that proposal and when the Development management Plan refers to the SID, it is that very SID that is meant as far as Thames Ditton and Weston Green are concerned.  This is unsatisfactory.

The revised Development Management Plan can be viewed on the portal above but I have also downloaded a copy for ease of reference which is here: http://residents-association.com/pdfs/Reg_19_Proposed_Submission_Development_Management_Plan.pdf

It is a 96 page document full of high sounding noble bureaucratic expressions but whether it will be implemented and enforced any more rigorously than other planning guidelines remains to be seen.  But, repressing natural cynicism about these exercises, it is one of the few documents we will have and it will at least nominally govern planning approvals for the next decade or so.  So you had better look at its 96 pages.

I do not have time to summarise or single out key points myself, perhaps the RA planning experts will do so here, but the following snippets might stimulate your interest:


To reduce people’s reliance on driving, by directing new development to sustainable locations, promoting attractive and convenient alternatives to using the private car and, in so doing, reducing congestion and pollution caused by traffic.
[[ comment: they do not go into "attractive and convenient alternatives"]]

---------------

Communities will have more say in the creation of new facilities as part of the Settlement ID Plan allocations and by having input into how funds from the Community
Infrastructure Levy are spent.
[[Comment: exactly what they mean by "communities" as opposed to communities of council people is not clear]]

-------------

The installation of telecommunications equipment will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
a. It is sited to achieve operational efficiency, taking account of the existing and planned future networks,
b. There is no significant adverse effect on the external appearance of the building on which it is located or the visual amenities of the area, including as
a result of clutter and poorly located street furniture,
c. Alternative sites, mast sharing and utilising existing buildings or structures have been fully considered and evidence is submitted if this is impractical,
d. Technologies to miniaturise and camouflage any telecommunications apparatus have been fully explored and incorporated where possible, and
e. It is appropriately designed, coloured and landscaped to take account of its
setting.

Installations should avoid sensitive local areas including conservation areas and listed buildings, Green Belt, sites of nature conservation importance, sites of special
scientific interest, Local Green Space, strategic views and landmarks and the Thames Policy Area unless there is evidence that this is technically impractical.

Local people are often concerned about the possible health implications of telecommunication development. However, the Framework states local planning
authorities must determine application on planning grounds and not determine health safeguards if the proposal meets International Commission guidelines for public
exposure.

-----------------

The Council will seek the provision of electric vehicle (EV) charging points within
all new developments as set out below.

----------------

Over to you...

On a first quick read, and a text search, I also could not find a single reference to the need for more school capacity to be associated with more housing development.  Please let me know if you spot it, and where in the document it is.  This appeared in the draft document last year which was put out to consultation, albeit in weak form, and I distinctly recall that the RA lobbied for it to be strengthened.  Since then, the problem of secondary schooling provision looks to be growing more acute even WITHOUT the extra homes targeted in the plan over the next decade.

Responding to Elmbridge BC Planning Policy Consultation seems complicated - do you have instructions to do this in the easiest way (!) and/or a link to respond, admin ?

If you go to the Elmbridge portal link I gave above, you can click through to the online version of the report page by page and there are instructions for commenting.  As far as I am aware, the relevant Association officers have not yet considered the document in full and there is as yet no particular guidance from that quarter.  The main RA effort went into last year's consultation on the draft, and on the SID, but it is hard to see any reflection of that consultation in the new text, frankly.

On my own reading of the document, briefly, it is full of hifalutin' bureaucratic cant, some rather ridiculous statements about things that were not subject to earlier consultation (e.g. electric car charging points. and statements that "attractive and convenient alternatives to car transport" will be encouraged - what, exactly?  Cycle lanes?!); and omits some very serious matters such as schooling provision (doubtless subsumed under the vague "infrastructure" catch-all).  It is also vague on flooding where you would think tougher language and measures against building on the flood plain would be in the text, rather than a few sententious statements about sustainable development and a reference to the existing policy that has manifestly been overridden in so many cases:
"All development proposals within a high flood risk area will need to take account of Core Strategy policy CS26 Flooding."  - typical bureaucratic waffle with the key drafting weakness being "to take into account"......

Minutes from PLANNING USERS MEETING on 9th APRIL (see http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/Elmbridge%20Borough%20Council/Planning/MinutesApril2014.pdf ) state: 

"Question: Could we have an update on the Settlement and Investment Development Plan?
Response: Following the consultation last year, changes in national policy have meant that we have had to re-examine elements of the evidence supporting these plans. Following the completion of this work, we expect to have a further consultation on our preferred approach in November 2014, with the Plan being submitted for examination in 2015."

And webpage at http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/policy/IDPlans.htm updated accordingly. 

So, having gone through all that, here we go again: in response to political pressure the agreed housing development plans and Local Plan, achieved at a cost of so very many hours of time and public consultation, are to be overturned, in effect (or "amended").

EBC states (but note that this 'public meeting' is not exactly public, for it is 'by invitation only') - my bolding:

"Planning and Housing Need in Elmbridge – Public Meeting on 20 October 2014, at Molesey Centre for the Community, West Molesey KT8 2AS at 7pm

Since adopting the Core Strategy, the Government has made significant changes in the way local authorities have to plan for new housing. In particular, all local authorities must now assess and try to meet in full the need for housing in their area.

Whilst the Council has successfully delivered new homes, these changes, alongside recent decisions and legal challenges to other boroughs, mean that the Council now needs to reconsider the evidence on which it has based its current approach to housing development.

To ensure that residents and other interested parties are aware of these changes and the impact on our Local Plan, we would like to invite you to a public meeting at:
Molesey Centre for the Community, 2 Bishop Fox Way, West Molesey, Surrey, KT8 2AS on Monday 20 October 2014 at 7pm      
At this meeting we will set out the work we will be doing as a result of these changes, such as:
Finding out how many more homes we need 
Identifying where these new homes can and can’t go 
Working with other local authorities, including London boroughs, to identify and meet the need for new homes across the wider area 
Stopping work on Settlement Investment and Development Plans while we complete the above 
This work will determine whether or not we can continue with our current plans or if we need to produce a new Local Plan, with a revised housing target and strategy for directing development.

This only briefly explains the situation we are facing. The public meeting will not only allow us to talk to you about these issues but also give you the opportunity to ask us questions and find out what will happen next.

Please note that this is an invitation only event with a strict limit of 100 people
"

More details, updates, copy of presentation and notes of Q&A's at :

http://www.elmbridge.gov.uk/planning/policy/plgro.htm

Ultimate threat to Green Belt discussed on 'World at One' today :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04nv6md

And new campaign from CPRE at :

http://www.cpre.org.uk/how-you-can-help/take-action/waste-of-space