WRITTEN EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY
BRYAN S. JEZEPH
(LOCO 021)
1.0 SUMMARY
¾ The
principle of Localism in terms of ensuring greater benefits for
local communities is strongly supported. However, the published
advice will not achieve this objective.
¾ How
can the issue of Sustainability be given adequate emphasis when
local residents have a different agenda—minimising the impact
upon them?
¾ The
Sustainability Assessment does not include the assessment of existing
facilities. Thus, the fact that there is an existing school with
capacity or even a need for more pupils to ensure its viability
is not part of the evaluation process. The same applies to the
existence of community facilities. The fact that they exist is
beneficial but they need greater investment or usage. A similar
situation applies to churches, shops etc. On the other hand, a
new Major/Strategic Development Area is favoured where new schools,
community facilities, churches and shops have to be provided.
The priority should be reversed. Optimise the existing and then
promote the new.
¾ Engaging
with local residents is resisted even if benefits are offered.
Attempts to engage Parish Councils in the past two years have
met with resistance and prevarication. Of four Parish Council's
in Winchester District, one has received a presentation and discussed
"wish lists" for new facilities; one has refused outright
to engage; one has agreed but not offered a date over a year of
discussion and finally, the fourth agreed to receive a private
presentation on the basis that no reference was made by my practice
to the event taking place and no note of meeting.
¾ The
offer of benefits by way of Council Tax payments for six years
may be helpful to some Districts. In the case of Winchester, for
example, there are two major developments proposed at Whiteley
(an extension of 3,000 new dwellings) and West of Waterlooville
(an additional 1,000 proposed over and above an agreed figure
of 2,000). Whiteley adjoins the boundary of Fareham Borough but
it is 15 miles from Winchester City while West of Waterlooville
is co-terminous with Havant Borough Council but 17 miles from
Winchester City. How will the local community benefit from the
Council Tax benefits?
¾ Some
Districts such as Hart are so constrained that little development
is proposed and the benefits will not materialise at all.
¾ Finally,
development can assist with the issue of sustainability by providing
sources of energy that could serve the existing community such
as wind farms, ground source thermal systems, etc.
2.0 DETAILED
EVALUATION
The Principle of Localism
2.1 The principle of Localism in terms of ensuring
greater benefits for local communities is strongly supported.
However, the published advice will not achieve this objective.
2.2 As a Town Planner (MRTPI) and a Chartered
Surveyor (FRICS), I am able to advise developers on both planning
and valuation matters. The combination of these skills enables
me to provide advice on both planning and development issues.
As a result, I pre-empted the "localism agenda" by pursuing
my own version over the past few years to try to engage communities
and to offer the prospect of enhancing local facilities. Sadly,
in the main, this fell upon "deaf ears".
2.3 I had the good fortune of receiving instructions
from client landowners who were willing to make significant contributions
to local communities as part of the promotion of their land. I
have therefore tested "localism" already and I have
set out my experience in the section below entitled "Consulting
Local Communities".
Political Representation
2.4 The promotion of land is exceptionally complex
and it is difficult to explain the issues to local residents.
This is especially the case in the context of public opposition
to development. I suspect that the Parish Councils consider that
to discuss development proposals and "wish lists" is
like "communing with the enemy".
2.5 I have recently received a publication showing
the faces of the Councillors in the Borough of Fareham. The average
age of the Councillors was clearly in the plus 50 range and probably
much older. There were no Councillors under 40. These Councillors
essentially represent the same age group which is dominated by
"nimbys".
2.6 This extremely biased representation means
that the young are not involved in the process. Perhaps, it is
necessary to consult young people including local school children
separately. They are the ones who will appreciate the need for
more housing as they are or will be the ones who cannot afford
to buy without parental support or even afford rents. I often
hear that young people are leaving the UK to find housing at affordable
prices.
2.7 The young and poor are not organised as a
pressure group and there is no motivation to place housing higher
on the agenda in spite of the consequences for a large sector
of the community. Even the issue of the ageing population fails
to reach the agenda. It is essential that every local community
is "incentivised" and required to provide housing to
meet the needs of these groups.
Sustainability
2.8 One of the objectives of the planning system
is to guide development towards the most sustainable locations.
This raises two significant issues. In the first place, local
residents have a different agenda. Their objective is to guide
development away from their homes. This means that many schemes
have political support where it affects the least number of people.
This is one of the reasons for the support for development on
the Strategic Development Areas and Major Development Areas of
Whiteley and West of Waterlooville. These large areas have very
few local residents while the landowners are the greatest beneficiaries.
2.9 It is surprising and not widely recognised
that the Sustainability Assessment does not include the assessment
of existing facilities. Thus, the fact that there may be an existing
school with capacity or even a need for more pupils to ensure
its viability is not part of the evaluation process. The same
applies to the existence of community facilities. Besides the
fact that they are already available, or may need greater investment
or usage is not part of the assessment. The same issues affect
churches, shops, jobs etc. This issue is especially important
in times of recession when in investment in schools is on hold
and finance for community facilities severely restricted.
2.10 On the other hand, a new Major/Strategic
Development Area is favoured where new schools, community facilities,
churches and shops have to be provided. The priority should be
reversed. Optimise the existing and then promote the new.
2.11 I have been advised that a new primary school
costs in the region of £10 million while a secondary school
is around £25-30 million. As a result, school children have
to be bussed out of the area to attend secondary schools. Is this
something that can be contemplated in the SDA at Whiteley in the
near future?
2.12 In my opinion, Whiteley is one of the most
unsustainable locations in the South East of England. It relies
on access from a Motorway Junction. It is evident that a very
high proportion of employees travel by car as it is virtually
impossible to travel there by public transport. The bus services
must serve a very wide sub-region and the nearest railway station
is outside the area. Once in the area, there are many firms and
consequent job opportunities but it is very difficult to park
there. Car parks are full and the access roads to the commercial
buildings are entirely lined by workers' cars.
2.13 On the other hand, development on the edge
of existing settlements will help to sustain local facilities
including schools and will promote development in difficult times.
Maximising existing facilities is a fundamental consideration
in the assessment of sustainability. More development can also
provide support for public transport.
Tax Incentives
2.14 The offer of benefits by way of Council
Tax payments for six years may be helpful to some Districts. It
is uncertain how the local community or neighbourhood will benefit
from these payments. They are not likely to influence the location
of development but simply raise revenue.
2.15 In the example of Winchester District, there
are two major developments proposed at Whiteley (3,000 new dwellings)
and West of Waterlooville (an additional 1,000 proposed over and
above an agreed figure of 2,000). Whiteley adjoins the boundary
of Fareham Borough but it is 15 miles from Winchester City
while West of Waterlooville is co-terminous with Havant Borough
Council but 17 miles from Winchester City. How will the local
community benefit from the Council Tax benefits?
2.16 By contrast, development at the West of
Waterlooville provides facilities mostly for the residents of
Havant and Whiteley provides the same limitations with very few
benefits for the wider population of Winchester District. This
means that the ratepayers of Winchester will benefit from these
payments while the new residents of these growth areas will look
to the adjoining authorities for their services and facilities.
CONSULTING LOCAL
COMMUNTITIES
2.17 In my role as a planning consultant, I have
made innumerable presentations to local resident groups and Councils.
The difficulty of persuading local residents that there was any
benefit in accepting development made me realise that more had
to be done. This led me to consider offering benefits as part
of development directly to the local community. In fact, I pre-empted
the "localism agenda" by pursuing my own version over
the past few years to try to engage communities. I had the good
fortune of receiving instructions from client landowners who were
willing to make significant contributions to local communities
as part of the promotion of their land.
2.18 I have been advising landowners who are
promoting sites in the settlements of Bishops Waltham, Swanmore,
Wickham and Denmead. As local people, the owners feel responsible
for their actions and they all have an element of altruism which
extends beyond the desire to sell their land for maximum value.
In these four cases, my clients were willing to engage with the
local community to offer the provision of significant benefits
over and above the normal level of contributions sought by the
Councils. As a result, I was asked to approach the local Parish
Councils to attempt to ascertain their "wish lists"
to provide new or improved community facilities. I can provide
copies of the relevant correspondence.
2.19 There are two important considerations that
determine the level of contributions that can be offered. The
first is the support for realistic levels of development to provide
some certainty that there will be a reward for their expenditure
on promoting their land. This will ensure that there is no need
to turn to a development company to promote the development. In
most cases, the background work on deliverability has already
been undertaken and can be proven.
2.20 The second point is that there is a threshold
in every case where the contributions towards local facilities
moves from a low minimal level (as typically required by S106
agreements) to a higher level. For example, some sites require
major infrastructure provision to support development which precludes
significant contributions whereas other sites have few problems.
In the latter case, a greater contribution towards local facilities
is possible.
2.21 My example for the sake of the argument
that 100 houses can only contribute towards infrastructure requirements;
but for an additional 100 houses it is possible to provide significant
sums towards community provision. While for a yet greater number
the level of provision can be very substantial indeed. It is possible
to refine these figures for each site.
2.22 In one case with which I am involved, the
land owners tried to engage with the Parish Council to develop
these thresholds so that the community can see the possibilities.
The thresholds are difficult to be precise at this stage but for
say 100 houses the owners are willing to provide 4 hectares of
land for recreation purposes. For say 200 houses, the land can
be laid out as playing fields and for 300 houses a pavilion can
be financed and over 300 houses a pavilion plus swimming pool
could be provided.
2.23 I have tried to engage with four Parish
Councils in Winchester District where my clients owned land. One
has received a presentation and discussed "wish lists"
for new facilities; one has refused outright to engage; one has
agreed but not offered a date over a year of discussion and finally,
the fourth agreed to receive a private presentation on the basis
that no reference was made by my practice to the event taking
place and no note of meeting.
2.24 In one settlement I have tried to promote
a retirement village. I have received no response or acknowledgement
of this proposal from the Parish or District Council. The Parish
Council agreed to meet but have prevaricated about a date for
a presentation. Nothing has been arranged a year later. In another
settlement, the land owner is willing to provide land for community
facilities in return for support for housing development on his
land. Parish Council has already indicated that it would welcome
the improvement of its bus services which are exceptionally poor.
2.25 The offer of meetings with another Parish
Council have been rejected. In fact, my use of a published "wish
list" resulted in a letter from the Parish Council questioning
its use. The Parish Council had indicated that it needs better
leisure facilities.
2.26 In a third settlement, the land owners proposed
a nursing home as part of a scheme for housing development and
support for community facilities. The settlement needs employment
opportunities and a nursing home could provide over 50 jobs. A
private meeting with some Members of the Parish Council was held
but only on the basis of informing the Councillors with the condition
that no mention of the meeting was to be made public.
2.27 In the fourth settlement, two presentations
have taken place but the Parish Council has reneged on a public
statement of support for a level of development reducing the proposed
number of dwellings from 250 to 114 but still expecting the same
level of contributions towards facilities. It is difficult to
see how the community can be obliged to maintain its position.
I have consulted the Education Authority and it is very clear
that utilising capacity in existing schools is the most economical
solution. Children from any new development in the village can
be readily accommodated in the existing school.
2.28 The release of land in these settlements
could provide housing land for a range of local development companies
who could provide local employment and, in turn, could be perhaps,
be required to provide work for a range of apprentices etc.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
OF ENCOURAGING
HOUSE BUILDING
2.29 There are other reasons why we should be
encouraging house building. It would help the recovery from recession.
It can provide jobs and support many businesses and support local
facilities. Making the efficient use of limited resources is more
important than ever in the emerging straitened circumstances.
There is also the "multiplier effect" that new house
building can bring. With the looming funding crisis for Housing
Associations, the private sector could make a greater contribution
to the provision of affordable housing.
DTZ REPORT
2.30 There is a further puzzling consideration.
The Councils of Eastleigh, Fareham, Winchester and East Hampshire,
jointly commissioned a study by DTZ which clearly favoured the
wider distribution of development and less reliance on SDAs.
2.31 Why were the findings of this Report ignored?
The Report favoured a range of smaller sites across the region
and it questioned the merits of having both the West of Waterlooville
MDA and the North of Fareham SDA as they both serve south east
Hampshire. There has not been any reference in either the Winchester
or the Fareham Core Strategies on the impact of the Fareham SDA
on the rural area to the north including Wickham village. The
traffic implications of 8,000-10,000 houses will be immense and
much greater than any housing proposals in the village.
2.32 Consultation across District boundaries
does not involve local residents. Unless the issues are pointed
out to them they will live in ignorance until the impact becomes
a reality. Consultation programmes do not attempt to involve the
"hard to reach".
THE GERMAN
EXPERIENCE
2.33 A large development in Germany has been
reported in the press recently. At Vauban, a suburb of Freiburg,
an exceptionally sustainable housing scheme has been developed.
By working with the local Council with the objective of maximising
the benefits an estate has been developed which has minimised
the energy requirements of the community by creating sufficient
electricity that there is excess to be sold to the "grid".
Cars are not excluded but they are banished to a communal car
park to create "home zones". Individual plots have been
sold to families willing to develop carbon free homes. The development
is very popular.
2.34 The Council has attributed its success to
"a ground up approach, with strong local leaders and no developers"!
Surely, we should be taking a similar and more pro-active and
even experimental approach especially with regard to issues relating
to sustainable construction. Larger scale developments on the
edge of these settlements offer the prospect of providing benefits
to the local residents by generating energy from a range of sustainable
sources.
3.0 CONCLUSION
3.1 The greater involvement of local communities
will be very beneficial. However, local residents need much stronger
incentives to ensure that they take seriously the importance of
promoting development. Most development creates strong hostility.
Contributions to Council income is not going to influence the
older members of society. Enhanced services and maximising existing
facilities are not going to register with a majority of residents.
3.2 It is imperative that both a carrot and a
stick approach is developed. Communities must recognise that they
have a responsibility to look after the young and old and the
disenfranchised. They make their contribution to the needs of
the wider community in the mutual interest of us all. I do not
believe that the proposals as published to date will achieve this.
October 2010
| 
