Fighting Unsustainable Overdevelopment (South West Surrey Liberal Democrats)

South West Surrey Liberal Democrats <info@swsurreylibdems.org.uk>

Fighting Unsustainable Overdevelopment

February 10, 2006 6:42 PM
By Cllr Chris Mansell

Farnham Cllrs Chris Mansell and Sue Farrow

It's good news and bad news for Waverley on the housing and planning front. The government has been farming out building targets for the next ten years. Although Waverley's initial share has been negotiated back by the Liberal Democrat administration at Waverley to 230 per annum, that's still above current targets.

The government have also issued a new planning policy statement for consultation which looks to increase the density of development in built up areas above the current range of 30-50 dwellings per hectare (approximately 15-25 dwellings per acre). The government wants to see increases in the density of urban developments, defined as mixing residential and employment areas such as town centres, which it proposes would could have between 40-75 dwellings per hectare (roughly 20-38 dwellings per acre), suburban developments (predominantly residential) would have 35-55 dwellings per hectare and even rural areas would have a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare.

Local Liberal Democrats have been pointing out that increasing the density of development puts an increasing strain on the infrastructure of Waverley's towns and villages. Roads, drains, sewers, the water supply along with health facilities and schools have all been expected to deal with the increased use without any investment in their capacity. Waverley's Liberal Democrats have therefore welcomed a recent a planning appeal decision in South Farnham. The appeal to allow the building of flats (at 64 dwellings per hectare) was dismissed by the inspector on the grounds that the development was unsustainable. The specific grounds were:

(i) that it was well beyond 5 to 10 minutes walking distance from the town centre;

(ii) the roads and the hills made cycling an unfavourable alternative;

(iii) public transport was infrequent and inconvenient; and

(iv) parking provision implicitly recognised that a private car was a requirement.

Although the inspector had no problem with the character and appearance of the proposed building, the inadequacy of the infrastructure was his overriding consideration.

"This appeal decision is not a magic bullet," said Chris Mansell, a Farnham Liberal Democrat councillor for Shortheath and Boundstonein Farnham, "but it does offer pointers to residents as to how they might object to large planning applications if they are so minded". Liberal Democrat councillors will be only too pleased to offer advice to residents looking to lodge objections as to how and to whom they should do it. Don't expect them however to be one of the objectors: that's against the planning rules.