Latest from Nick Palmer
| Published: 2nd April 2008 17:41 |
Hi all -
I had the long-awaited meeting with Nottingham Regeneration Limited
today ( 31 March 2008).
The meeting was with the only other MPs who have expressed concern to NRL, Paddy Tipping and Vernon Coaker, and in addition to NRL's executives had a number of County Council planning staff and a wide range of representatives from environmental groups whom we'd invited (notably the Ramblers and CPRE were there in force, plus the Notts Wildlife Trust).
Here are my notes, with a Q&A at the end for readers who would like more detail.
1. What is the estimated need for housing?
----------------------------------------------------
It's generally agreed that there will be a need for a significant number of additional homes (probably 60-70,000) over the 20 years from 2006-2026 (some of them have already been built, of course, since we're now in 2008 - in Broxtowe alone, the number already approved, built or under construction since 2006 is more than two thousand).
The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) which contains these estimates is currently being updated, and will be published next month. It's expected to have a figure in the above range, and may propose figures for each borough to share out the numbers. However, that's subject to change - the boroughs can get together as they're doing, and propose a different share-out. The RSS won't discuss any specific sites.
2. What will the NRL study do?
---------------------------------------
The NRL study that I've been lobbying to influence will look at specific sites around the conurbation with a view to reducing the number. Two dozen large ones and a number of smaller ones have been proposed. It will list each one, and note advantages and disadvantages of each. Some will have so many disadvantages that it will be possible to rule them out without further ado. As you know, this has always been my primary objective: to get the clearly unreasonable proposals dismissed at an early stage, so we can forget about them and get on with life. The NRL study will not approve any sites, but simply note that some have fewer drawbacks than others. They expect to finish the first part of this study in May, but are likely to need further work to assess details. We can expect to see it in full by September, though I hope to be able to get some indications before then, probably by July. It will appears with notes from the councils on issues and options to weigh up. If, for instance, one site is brownfield but would cause traffic congestion, while another is greenfield but has good transport, NRL won't try to tell us which is best. There will then be extensive public consultations on the choices.
3. What about communities?
-----------------------------------
An important new factor is that the Government expects all councils to produce assessments of community viability before proceeding with any new housing approach. This hasn't really been done before.
Let me give an example: the Toton development on part of the Army depot site was a pretty good one in classic planning terms - it was brownfield, near major shopping, and on a good bus route. But although I supported it when it was built, I urged that there should be a community centre with facilities for different age groups, and that hasn't happened, so there really isn't as much community life as there is in, say, Beeston. Apart from leisure facilities, the Government wants to see a host of other issues addressed as part of the process: school availability, doctors, local employment, transport connections (e.g. new bus routes) and access to green space (an important argument in our context, as we want to protect such access for the communities already in place). This will all slow down the process for those sites not ruled out by the NRL study, since the developer won't just have to show that the site is OK for housing, but that it fits with the council's wider community concept.
4. What about stability?
-----------------------------
I pointed out that it's only four years since the last time we fought over the Watnall issue. How could we avoid going round the same issues again every few years? They said the objective of planning through to 2026 is to avoid that. Each council will be expected to have a rolling five-year overview of which sites are coming up for potential development, but only within the long-term framework, so if an area is said to be unsuitable in the current review, it will stay that way unless there are really major unforeseeable changes.
5. What next?
------------------
We agreed to meet again in September, by which time we should have both the overall numbers and a pretty good idea of which areas are still in question. I proposed that NRL should add to its governing board a representative of the environmental groups who were present,and they promised to look at doing that - apparently it has never been suggested before, since up to now NRL has mainly been looking at brownfield sites where environmental issues had been less prominent. I also urged early publication of proposals (*before* the planners had made up their minds what the wanted to do) so that there was the maximum opportunity to debate them before anyone made up their minds: the process so far had, I said, made a lot of people worried that there would be a fait accompli and we would simply not accept that.
I hope this is helpful. Many thanks to everyone who helped get this early meeting with NRL. Please see the Q&A below for when I'm likely to be asking you to help with further action to protect the future of
our communities.
Best wishes
Nick
Q&A
What is the expected timeline? When can you next influence it?
----------------------------------------------------------
APRIL 2008: Specific site planning applications expected in Rushcliffe. If approved, these will take away a significant part of the housing demand, but Rushcliffe will want to delay decisions if possible to fit in the overall picture.
Announcement of short-list for eco-towns - this will tell us whether the Rushcliffe proposal is still a possibility.
MAY 2008: Consultants' report on individual sites received by NRL with pros and cons for each site. Councils assess it and draw up issues for consultation, including initial outline of community strategies.
Revised RSS study with overall numbers projection published.
3RD QUARTER 2008: Consultation on community strategies under way. I'll report regularly on this as it emerges and let you know how and where to give input.
Councils publish NRL report and initiate public consultation on options for assessing specific sites. At this point, I'll be asking you to mobilise to oppose anything we think unreasonable. I'll report back from the further meeting with NRL.
4TH QUARTER 2008: By then we should know the decision on the tram, which is likely to be relevant to the debate. The initial consultations should be concluded.
2009: Possible specific planning applications for any sites that have survived the process.
What sort of homes are needed? How is the figure arrived at?
----------------------------------------------------------
The estimate is a demographic extrapolation of long-standing trends in how long people live, the tendency to split up into smaller units, and so on: the trend has been upwards, which is why we now have long waiting-lists and people struggling to get on the housing ladder.
It's reflecting a number of different types of need, from the basic accommodation (typically small flats) to get people out of near- homelessness, to `starter homes' for couples, to family homes once couples have children. It allows for the fact that some existing homes (up to 6% in some areas) are currently vacant - councils are keen to nudge people into filling them, but some are the wrong size or in the wrong place for the need: an empty four-bedroom house in Trowell doesn't help a couple starting out in Chilwell. The city will take much of the growth, but some will need to spread around the conurbation.
What are the main issues for our area?
---------------------------------------------
The most controversial proposals in our area are Watnall-Kimberley- Moorgreen (the Moorgreen Fair site and onwards up to the edge of Moorgreen and Kimberley), Trowell/ /Stapleford/Cossall (e.g. Field Farm reaching up to the edge of Cossall), and Chilwell/Bramcote - e.g. the
area all around Bardills reaching up towards Bramcote Village) - see my earlier updates for details. There is also a proposal near the Nottingham Business Park off the B6002 which could have serious consequences for Nuthall roundabout congestion (already horrific at peak times).
The issues I've been raising on your behalf are principally these:
• Impact on green belt for leisure (walking, sports, etc.),visual attractiveness and impact on wildlife
• Impact on traffic, with a knock-on effect on the environment - the Nuthall Island is a particularly obvious problem, but there are others too.
• Impact on flooding. This is particularly an issue with the Field Farm and Chilwell proposals - building on flood plains and disrupting water courses has very significant risks which I'm anxious to ensure that NRL's study properly reflects
• Impact on local infrastructure and communities. See the
issues raised in point 3. In particular, Government policy is to maintain Green Belt separation between Nottingham and Derby, and some of the proposals would affect that quite strongly.
If there are issues which you feel I've overlooked, please let me know!
Nick Palmer ( Broxtowe Labour MP )
Community Comment:
Add your comment:
You will need to sign in to post a comment to this article. if you do not have an AboutMyArea account, you can join now for free.
