The Times newspaper has an interesting report on the Lilybrook Development in Pegwell (below).
I know the local Tories are desperate to blame government policy for garden grabbing, but the truth is somewhat more complicated as the article points out. We do need more housing, there is only so much purely brown field land available. Thanet Tories have been in charge of the Local Development Plan for several years now but have not tackled the issue. THere is no policy locally because of this.
A case of hypocrisy?
"Garden-grabbing has become a major policy issue in areas where homeowners are particularly susceptible to approaches. Last month a Private Members’ Bill by the Labour MP Andrew Dismore was the latest of at least four Bills in recent years aimed at banning the practice — none of the Bills have become law. The lure of cash on offer from opportunistic developers is dividing local communities — some neighbours are accepting the money, some aren’t and do not want their neighbours to either.
Related Links
What the main political parties say about housing policy
The effect of this is clear in Pegwell, near Ramsgate, Kent, where Thanet District Council identified the extensive gardens of two houses as a potential two acre-plus development site. Current policies allow land agents to approach owners of properties near designated development land asking if they would be interested in selling. The result in Kent was that four householders expressed an interest, leading to suggestions that up to 40 houses might be built on the combined site, and a row that set neighbour against neighbour.
David Pownceby, the developer of the scheme in Pegwell, is dismayed by the label of garden-grabber. He was under the impression that the local council wanted to provide higher density housing on every site to meet targets. However, proposals for high-density housing schemes are now being rejected by elected council members. His company, Lilybrook Developments, bought the designated housing site, then faced a protracted dispute about what sort of housing would be suitable.
His latest scheme, which is subject to consideration. comprises 14 three-storey £450,000 houses — a far cry from the council’s idea of providing a mixed development that would include affordable homes and far fewer than the 40 originally planned. “We were told we couldn’t go below 40 houses, then it was 30 houses, then we settled on 26, nine of them as affordable homes. Now we’re down to 14, none of them designated as low-cost,” he says. “It is an example of how planning policies need a complete overhaul.”
Simon Thomas, senior planning officer for Thanet District Council, says that the council was under pressure to identify development land: “According to the government plan, there is a requirement for 7,500 additional homes in Thanet.” However, councils are also obliged to ensure that new developments are not so dense that they are considered over-crowded. Guidelines state that builders should aim for 30 dwellings per hectare. Marion Pearce, a local resident, has led a ferocious campaign against the Lilybrook development. “These were lovely gardens, sacred little spaces that have been lost for ever,” she says. “Even now, I wouldn’t be surprised if these 14 three-storey units turn into flats.”
The Government maintains that most new developments are on former industrial sites. However, the Communities and Local Government department has embarked on an investigation to find out how much development on land that was formerly gardens is being approved.
Garden Grabbers?? Surely it is the greedy home-owners selling to developers at inflated prices that are the ones to be looked down on. Neighbours often get their heads together and approach a developer but it is always the developer that gets blamed as being the greedy one. "
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I tried to help some neighbours of mine oppose a back garden development and won one round but lost in the end when another plan got passed by committee. One leading member couldn't understand why residents in the adjacent street should be worried about people looking into their bedrooms from the building when completed.
Land duly sold about three years ago and we've all had to enjoy a building site partially developed for the last two years. The builder keeps going off to another job so this site gets left. We can't wait, if we live long enough, to see it finished as it's a real blot on the landscape. A beautiful garden destroyed, trees taken out (not worth protecting)etc. all in the name of greed.
Build 7,500 houses at Manston. Build big ones. Build small ones. Build medium size ones. With the remainign ladns, you'll have enough space for another westwood cross and a Thanet Earth. Or a China Gateway 4.
Rather than cram more one bed flats into large houses in town, or knock down grade 2 listed buildings to do the same, surely this answers all of Infratil's and TDC's issues all in one?
And where are all the planes going to land???
Lilybrook own two buildings in Broadstairs I see regularly. One is partly-converted but work seems to have stopped totally,the other has broken windows but no sign of anything being done to convert/rebuild.
At Pergwell two of the houses there are boarded up so, like in Broadstairs, the neighbours are having to live with decaying properties. It must be so disheartening for those who take care of their own gardens/houses to be forced to live for years with a part-finished development.
NIMBYS of the world Unite !
We live in a green and pleasant land, but heaven help anyone that suggests being jerusulem in it.
It really does get my goat that whenever someone suggests a practical way forward for accomodating our increasingly splintered society with its need for more and more properties, another bunch of idiots jump up and say fine but not around here.
It applies in this case and in other aspects of policy (wind farms is another good example, agreed to be a good thing but dont try and actually get planning permission locally for one).
NIMBYS of the world Unite !
We live in a green and pleasant land, but heaven help anyone that suggests being jerusulem in it.
It really does get my goat that whenever someone suggests a practical way forward for accomodating our increasingly splintered society with its need for more and more properties, another bunch of idiots jump up and say fine but not around here.
It applies in this case and in other aspects of policy (wind farms is another good example, agreed to be a good thing but dont try and actually get planning permission locally for one).
The capitalist pig-dog Bourgeoisie need to understand that whilst they may own their own land, they dont own other people and their land and they certainly dont own the natural environment in their local area.
Planning decisions should be taken out of the hands of such people and taken according to a proper strategic plan. Local opinion should be irrelevant.
They should build on golf courses. There's far too many of them being used by far too few people.
747's make good homes - you could always park and ride...boom, boom
Some of these developments are so pokey you can touch both walls of the living space while standing in the middle of the room. Great for bringing up children. No play space. No gardens worthy of the name. They are no better than the rows of houses built for factory workers in the Midlands and North of the country. Probably won't even last as long. It's not NIMYISM but a realisation that we need to protect our environment. Actually I like windfarms and when some people I know wanted to oppose them because they feared they'd devalue their houses I couldn't agree and said so.
Post a Comment