Paul Wilkinson
webmaster
Thursday, October 23, 2008 13:28 |
NODISC - from the other side of the fence...
I found the following on a site called
www.land-investment-uk.com
"Under the new, emerging land planning regime, house building targets are set at the regional level and must be adhered to at the local level. Unitary Development Plans (the old land planning regime) are being superseded at a macro level by Regional Plans and the Local Development Framework at a micro level (which collectively comprises the new land planning regime).
For the purposes of allocating planning land for development, Regional Assemblies have authority conferred on them by the Secretary of State. English land without planning permission has effectively been liberated from the draconian control of local councils to more progressive, realistic regional bodies which will ensure houses are built in sufficient supply. English land without planning permission is set to be allocated for land use planning on a scale not seen since before the Second World War.
Land owners and property developers must now seek land use planning permission via the relevant Regional Plan and the corresponding Local Development Framework. Housing requirements for any given region (which is important in land planning permission applications) can be ascertained at the Regional Plan level, these are then filtered through to each Local Development Framework. For a successful land planning application, the site must then be reallocated under the LDF."
|
andrew
Thursday, October 23, 2008 15:31 |
Can we not get onto the relevant people at our Regional Assemblies and create a stink? ...Find out names to complain to, addresses to write to, and find out what their actual purpose in life really is. eg were they formed just to annoy normal people or do they rise above that level... |
Basil
Friday, October 24, 2008 01:27 |
Paul that is frightening. MAYBE WE SHOULD GET AS MUCH PLANNING APPLICATIONS/PROPOSALS IN AS IS POSSIBLE AND TIE THE PROCESS UP ! |
Paul Wilkinson
webmaster
Friday, October 24, 2008 07:01 |
I think someone's done that already! An out-of-date page on the CDC website asks for sites suitable fo development to be nominated and says you don't have to be a developer or land owner, you just have to think it's a suitable site!!! Seeing as some landowners didn't know anything about this, a few Freedom of Information requests to CDC should reveal who nominated what!
A load more sites were actually nominated than made it through to the SHELAA, they had three "sieves" to filter the sites.
|
Liz K
NODISC
Friday, October 24, 2008 07:15 |
Hi All.
I went to the local area forum too last night, not that exciting really but there was someone there from planning. I've asked a few questions and have arranged a one-to-one meeting on 6th November to ask some more. I've obviously got questions on my list, and I intend to ask the questions that have been posted on the forum over the last couple of days. Anybody else who wants anything asking/answering should e-mail me on elizabethkildunne@yahoo.co.uk rather than posting them here, as CDC monitor this site.
I think that any interested parties, particularly those of us who have been contributing to the forum, should get together to discuss the next step. There are some obviously well-informed people writing and some of these seem to be new to the NODISC forum, i.e. over the last couple of days, and have some new and valid information.
Dawn (Sutton Pavillion) - is it possible for us to all meet at the Pavillion, either during the day at a weekend, or even one evening?
One important fact that has come to light is the number of houses actually built in Craven over recent years. Those of you who attended the Skipton seminar will recall Colin Walker saying that an average of 260 houses per year has been built. This is a significant exaggeration. Figures are:
2006/2007 (March): 188
2007/2008 (March): 139
2008/2008 (October): 181 - this is in 6 months, which is worrying!!
Really think we should get a meeting organised though - what are everyone's thoughts?
|
Dawn - Sutton Pavilion
Sutton
Friday, October 24, 2008 08:07 |
Hi Liz
I have spoken to the Clerk at the Parish Council re your proposal, and she will be contacting you.
Dawn |
Liz K
NODISC
Friday, October 24, 2008 08:43 |
Dear All
re my last post, although I feel we should get together to discuss what we think are good ideas, and what we should be proposing we hope to achieve, we must make sure we team up with the Parish Council and discuss any proposals/ideas with them, as they are are "official" link to CDC. Unfortunately, its not possible to meet in the Pavillion - any other proposals for a place - even a pub? |
Liz K
NODISC
Friday, October 24, 2008 08:57 |
PS The Parish Council will organise a public meeting for Suttoners later in the year to discuss the development issues we are facing. |
Tim
glusburn
Friday, October 24, 2008 12:41 |
Liz....your remark....'One important fact that has come to light is the number of houses actually built in Craven over recent years. Those of you who attended the Skipton seminar will recall Colin Walker saying that an average of 260 houses per year has been built. This is a significant exaggeration. Figures are:
2006/2007 (March): 188
2007/2008 (March): 139
2008/2008 (October): 181'
Some of these will be projects of one or two houses ....filling in between other properties....on lots with houses already on them .... as regards re high density projects like Green Lane....where affordable housing is only viable due to the rest of the project....on the Spatial Planning (Strategic Housing Market Assessment ) website it tells the viable size for developments including Affordable Housing....
What I'm getting at is....I wonder how many of those houses you quote are small owner occupier projects and how many are Affordable...????
Certainly a Development on the grounds of Cirteq (Glusburn Mill) for around 80 houses was avoided in 2007. |
Brian
Friday, October 24, 2008 13:21 |
I was also at the local area forum meeting last night and Liz K joined in the conversation I was having with Sean Watson (I think I have spelt her name correctly) and we talked about many things about the Leeds ... bid, the local development framework etc. We tried to tie her down about the infrastructure improvements including a footpath along Sutton Lane right through to Eastburn. If I understood her correctly she said, cutting it down to a few words, that if we were to accept the Leeds .. bid, for all it entails, then we would get the infrastructure we need for our present and future environment. I said that that was blackmail. Liz K, would you agree that this sums it up as to what Sean Watson said?
I also pointed out that when I have put objections into the council about other developments the subject of infrastructure is not a valid objection, a decision is made on the merrits of the proposal only. Also I stated that there has been in excess of 924 dwellings built or in the process of construction in Sutton alone since world war 2 and of these 924 at least 450 are in the last 25 to 30 years. The only change in infrastructure has been a few more classrooms at the 2 junior schools and South Craven School and an expansion of the Cross Hills Health Centre (bear in mind that one doctor's surgery closed), there has been no improvement to the roads.
Developing 20 houses here and 30 houses there, now and then, puts a gradual strain on the infrastructure and this has been happening since WW2 and now it is past breaking point. (The current basic infrastructure of Sutton was layed down in and arround the 1800's when people walked to the 4 mills.) This is development by stealth and as such does not attract any large amounts of money to improve the infrastructure. Can we really believe that, if we were to accept the over deveploment, that a cash strapped government would go to the IMF and borrow yet more money just to keep us quiet?
Similar ammount of development has also taken place in Cross Hills and Glusburn in the same time span but I have not had time to research that. |
Liz K
NODISC
Friday, October 24, 2008 16:22 |
Hi Tim, unfortunately, I didn't get the number of affordables, just the totals built. These are completed projects, not ones that are currently on the go - I didn't get specific projects either. It was just the overall numbers for Craven I was trying to get across to all, bearing in mind what Colin Walker said at Skipton....
Hi Brian - Sian Watson did indicate that if we had agreed to the LCGB bid, it would "move us up the pecking order" for infrastructure - but do we really need a railway station and a bridge for local infrastructure? This would have been beneficial for Leeds commuters, not for the existing local communities.
|
Paul Wilkinson
webmaster
Friday, October 24, 2008 16:40 |
And if we had agreed to the Growth Point Bid we would become a town and lose village identity.
CDC considers South Craven to be a "Service Centre" in the LDF. Service Centre is LDF speak for TOWN. Skipton is the principal Service Centre, Settle is a Service Centre.
One of our goals should be to have Sutton-in-Craven defined as a village, not an absorbed component in a Service Centre/Town, and revert the definition of South Craven back to "sub area" (as CDC used to refer to it) made up of ALL the local villages.
|
Paul Wilkinson
webmaster
Saturday, October 25, 2008 13:00 |
...more from the "other side", you must read this.
It's a "Five Minute Guide to New Growth Points" sub-titled "The Key to Unlocking a Site" [for development] on the EC Harris website at www.echarris.com.
One VERY important statement is...
"New Growth Point status is not a statutory designation."
Other gems include...
"this could be the right time to look again at previously 'mothballed' sites."
"However, proposals for New Growth Point status also needed to be ambitious, showing the ability to deliver housing growth in excess of current planned figures. This additional growth will be enabled by a series of partial reviews to enable the uplift in housing numbers to be reflected in the relevant RSS."
"...relieve pressure on high demand areas..."
"If you have sites that have been difficult to bring forward in the past, located in one of the New Growth Point locations, we are able to liaise with Local Planning Authorities on your behalf to assess this as a possible way forward."
The Key to Unlocking a Site |
steve
Saturday, October 25, 2008 14:44 |
is any body here banging the green drum work for Christeyns Ltd. |
Paul Wilkinson
webmaster
Saturday, October 25, 2008 14:48 |
We're not banging the "green" drum. Please don't use irrelevant logic trying to antagonise people. |
anon3
Saturday, October 25, 2008 16:04 |
May be relevant.
Anyone seen large article in todays Yorkshire Post , page 6:-
People in Yorkshire are to be consulted wether the region should accommodate 30,000 new homes each year-a giant leap from the already controversial figure of 22,000 agreed earlier this year. |
Liz K
NODISC
Sunday, October 26, 2008 07:35 |
Hi all, with regard to my earlier comment on 24th Oct about a public meeting being organised by the Parish Council, sorry but I've jumped the gun - its too early days - just me getting a bit over-excited and not being fully au fait with the correct procedures! |
Tim
glusburn
Monday, October 27, 2008 09:50 |
HERE'S a bit of info I think that has just arrived on the Spatial Planning web site....only I believe available since I asked them why these minutes were not available....
Minutes of Craven Spatial Planning Sub-Committee
21 Aug 2008....I have just pulled out some of it....
The main findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment were
Proposed Land Use
a) 204 hectares of land had been identified for housing equating to approximately 7768 dwellings.
b) 72 hectares of land had been identified for employment.
c) A total of 134 sites were proposed for housing use only.
d) 24 sites were proposed for employment use only.
e) 10 sites were proposed for a mix of housing and employment.
Size of Sites
a) 43 sites were small (between 0.1 and 0.4 hectares) for approximately 381 dwellings.
b) 95 sites were medium sized (between 0.4 and 2 hectares) for approximately 2675 dwellings.
c) 29 sites were large (between 2 and 5 hectares) for approximately 2115 dwellings.
d) 16 sites were very large (over 5 hectares) for approximately 2597 dwellings.
Location by Settlement
a) Skipton had the greatest dwelling capacity (2600 dwellings) and 40.96 hectares of employment land.
b) South Craven had the second highest dwelling capacity (1877 dwellings) and 15.28 hectares of employment land.
c) Settle had a dwelling capacity of 595 and 4.63 hectares of employment land.
d) High Bentham had a dwelling capacity of 818 and 3.32 hectares of employment land.
e) Gargrave had a dwelling capacity of 253 and 0.76 hectares of employment land.
f) Ingleton had a dwelling capacity of 549 and 4.55 hectares of employment land.
g) Other Villages had a total dwelling capacity of 1044 and 2.41 hectares of employment land.
Brownfield / Greenfield
81 (44%) sites were either wholly or partly previously developed land (brownfield).
102 (56%) sites were Greenfield.
82% of all employment sites were Greenfield.
Housing Land Supply
Overall the SHELAA identifies sites for approximately 9345 dwellings. This included the SHELAA sites(7768), small sites and windfall allowance (1475), existing commitments outside settlement strategy (102).
The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) requirement was 4750 (to the year 2026).
The SHELAA sites could accommodate almost double the RSS requirement.
57% of the RSS requirement could be met within current development limits.
The 5 year land supply requirement was 1250 dwellings and there were 1453 dwellings that could be built within current development limits or on previously developed land.
Employment Land Supply
There were 24 potential employment sites identified through the SHELAA.
The evidence in the ELR suggested that 36 hectares of new employment land should be provided from 2006 up to the year 2016.
The ELR evidence also suggested that a total of between 52 – 61 hectares of new employment land should be made available from 2006 up to the year 2021.
Evidence from the ELR indicated that 42 – 51 hectares of land may need to be apportioned to the high demand areas of Skipton and South Craven and 10 hectares may need to be apportioned to the North Craven sub-area.
|
Graham Wild
Monday, October 27, 2008 16:58 |
Liz. I think the meeting of a small section of the forum people is a good idea, but one request, please dont make this a sutton thing only, you should be getting people from all the three villages involved as all of us have been to the meetings, contributed to the forum etc. I live on station road in crosshills and know exactly what the traffic problems are and how bad it gets, so would like to be involved as i have had small but sucessful dealings along these lines before. |
Graham
Glusburn (ex Suttoner)
Monday, October 27, 2008 18:56 |
meeting tuesday 4th november south craven school 6.30 pm regarding the proposed development of 74 dwellings off Green lane in Glusburn
rumour has it the council have done a u turn over this development and will not oppose it, after unanimously rejecting it in july
need as many as possible to be at this meeting to find out what happened at the so called secret meeting
spread the word please
cheers
Graham
Green lane |
Graham
Glusburn (ex Suttoner)
Monday, October 27, 2008 19:01 |
Re 74 dwellings off Green lane - meeting will be 6.30pm Tuesday 4th November - at South Craven School.
I believe there are 25,830 homes in the Craven area (probably 800 empty) and 13% of which (3366) are in the Glusburn, C/Hills and Sutton area. Projected growth is 0.7% per annum = 180 houses needed in Craven area - 23 in G/burn, Sutton and C/Hills.
How many houses have been passed by planning but not yet built and if houses off Green Lane do go ahead - does this mean no other plans will be passed for 3 years??
copied from roberts message on another thread |
Liz K
NODISC
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 07:12 |
Hi Graham (Wild) absolutely agree - this is not just a Sutton thing, we all need to work together to maintain our villages. |
norma
Thursday, October 30, 2008 20:34 |
After sending an email to David Curry on 17.10.2008, asking for help regarding the damaging proposed over-davelopment of South Craven, I have now recieved an official reply which reads as follows:
'Thank you for your email about the proposed development in South Craven.
The plan has come entirely out of the blue to me as it has to many residents and I am seeking an urgent meeting with the council to discuss this and other matters. My instinct is to share your point of view. The villages of South Craven hang between Skipton and Keighley and could very easily become part of a suburban edge and I think it very important to maintain their character.
I will be further in touch when I have been able to get to the bottom of this proposal.'
I will let you all know when I hear any more. |
Dawn - Sutton Pavilion
Sutton
Thursday, October 30, 2008 21:30 |
Norma, thanks for sharing your reply from David Curry with us! It's surprising how little of this is still known, and how much more there is still left uncovered! |
Graham
Glusburn (ex Suttoner)
Friday, October 31, 2008 05:47 |
norma
im still waiting for a reply from david curry regarding the proposed development at Green Lane
wrote to him 6 weeks ago to which he acknowledged recieving my letter
cheers Graham |
