Hitcham and Taplow Society: NewsLetter91Planning

---+ What Are They Planning for Us?

In the not-too-distant past, ‘they’ usually meant the District Council or the County. However, the goal posts have been radically moved in recent years: the District Council have been required to replace the existing simple system with a multitude of documents forcing it to accept diktats from both the unelected South East Regional Authority and central government itself. There is now a clear and very present danger that we will have little say in what is being planned for us.

The old Local Plan was derived from sets of local policies and national guidelines. These local policies were cognisant of local issues. However, there now exists a South East Plan (SEP), which covers the whole South East Region; this in turn has spawned a raft of local authority documents, known collectively as the Local Development framework (LDF), the sole purpose of which appears to be to enact what the government demands. There is a local consultation process, but this is so structured as to provide a confirmation of the answers they want, rather than what we would like. 

One of these documents is the Core Strategy, which is meant to define the way in which all local development plans will realise the government’s aspirations, as laid out in the SEP. The Core Strategy for our area is now in the public domain on the South Bucks website. The consultation phase finished on April 27 and South Bucks will produce the final draft deposit version at the end of the year. 

Let’s take a look at what they’re offering. South Bucks has been allocated 1,880 houses, to be built in the period 2006–26, i.e. 94 houses a year. The Core Strategy document tells us that in the last three years we have already built, or approved to build, some 1,272 homes, so on the face of it we only need to build about 600 houses in the next 18 years – that’s 36 a year - to meet our target. If we narrow this down to Taplow, we are planning some 180 on the Mill Lane site. So just by our little selves our parish can supply one third of the entire South Bucks allocation of houses for the next 18 years! And this from a parish with just 2% of the whole South Bucks population. However, when you read the Core Strategy carefully, you will find that the 1,880 houses is a _minimum_ figure. So it’s still open house for the developers’ charter known as the SEP.

Reading even more, you will discover that there are more issues in the south Bucks Core Strategy that will materially affect Taplow. The following is a summary. 

   * Protection of the Green Belt is no longer a key consideration, as ministers prepare to sweep aside planning controls as part of the government’s pledge to carpet England with 3 million new homes by 2020.
   * The government is fiercely critical of the ‘restrictive’ planning policies which it considers local authorities are using to protect rural communities of less than 3,000 inhabitants. Councils will be encouraged to grant exceptional permission to build affordable homes, if necessary by releasing marginal Green Belt land. The Core Strategy document identifies ‘developed’ sites within the Green Belt, which could be likely development sites. Mill Lane is one such. The document also states that the new Mill Lane development ‘will not cause any traffic problems’. You should also be aware that the Mill Lane site has much more potential building land than that needed to accommodate the 180 houses currently proposed. Section 2.106 of the document suggests that the gasometer could be removed at some time to make further land available for development. 
   * Farmers and other landowners will be given incentives to sell land to developers and councils will have to earmark sites for new affordable homes in every village and community where locals are struggling to afford homes. Some 250 hectares of land in 60 such sites are identified, capable of accommodating more than 7,000 houses altogether.
   * There appears to be a major unstated policy shift regarding the labels GB3, which permits infill development and GB1, which does not. The Riverside Settlement has long been campaigning to have its label GB3 changed to GB1. So far as can be seen this differentiation has been dropped and 13 villages in South Bucks, including Taplow, are now defined as Rural Settlements. The implications are that Taplow Village as well as the Riverside may have to accept infill development.
   * The Council have hedged their bets by offering four possible development scenarios in the Core Strategy. The first involves urban intensification around Burnham, etc., which would permit new limited development by allowing infill. The second focuses on Beaconsfield and Gerrards Cross, and would involve rather less infill in Taplow. The third focuses on small settlements, which would result in small scale ‘rural exceptions’, by provision of affordable housing on Green Belt land adjacent to Taplow. This is in addition to some infill within Taplow. This would be the green light for Church Bros, to develop their Hermitage site in the Riverside Settlement. The fourth concentrates on settlements near or adjacent to Slough. This would focus all development on the south of the district around Burnham, Iver and Richings Park (but would we avoid this?)
   * Very little was said about Conservation Areas, other than that they would be ‘reviewing’ them…
   * The SEP requires that 25% of all houses should be rentals (social housing) with a further 10% to be cheap housing. So this means that over one third of all houses are to be ‘affordable’, which smacks more of social engineering than catering for need.
   * South Bucks reckon they will build about 500 affordable homes in the next 18 years, which is just under the SEP requirements. So these affordables must be in addition to the 600 they are already committed to. South Bucks would (sensibly) prefer to build this extra lot as small developments of 100% affordables
   * New housing, whether private or affordable, must support the needs of the whole community, including families, young people, older people, disabled people, black and minority ethnic groups and gypsies and travellers. Additionally, SEERA has set out four options for South Bucks ranging from 11 to 23 permanent pitches for gypsies and travellers. One wonders where these might be, especially since we have to cater for both their business and private needs.
   * An Air Quality Management Area was declared for corridors along the M4, M25 and M40 motorways in 2004. The A4 is not included, despite being identified as an area of high traffic congestion.
   * Over half the strategic site at Mill Lane Taplow is in Flood Zone 2 (medium probability of flooding) although some of the site is in Zones 3a (high probability) and 3b (functional floodplain). However, the Core Strategy states, 'There are strong planning reasons for the redevelopment of this important site' but adds 'Development of the strategic site at Mill Lane Taplow must ensure that vulnerable uses such as housing avoid the parts of the site at highest risk of flooding.' No houses are now planned by the developers in the high flood risk areas of Mill Lane.
   * Crossrail was given the go-ahead in July 2008 and will have to stop at Taplow and terminate at Maidenhead. The effects of electrification on the raised embankment and Brunel Bridge viewpoints are not discussed, yet both are in or adjacent to a Conservation Area.
   * The Government is to introduce a Community Infrastructure levy as a standard charge applied to new developments. This is a concern because at present most developers contribute their tithe for infrastructure development and if it becomes a government levy it is unlikely to be ring-fenced and will disappear into the general tax income pot. There is therefore no guarantee that it will be available to councils for the infrastructure to support a massive house-building programme.
   * None of the schools in South Bucks is projected to have surplus capacity, which begs the question of where all the extra children are to be educated.

I hope the above gives you an outline picture of what is being planned for us all over the next 18 years.

Fred Russell