Major ructions this week as Essex County Council has decided not to proceed with the much needed expansion of one of our local primary schools.
As more and more houses are built here in Chipping Bonhunt , the local schools have not kept pace with demand. Without the extra spaces that were promised, lots of local children will not have places over the next few years.
It’s deeply frustrating to see the inevitable crisis unfold and all our worst fears about inadequate infrastructure to support the new housing being confirmed.
Our local community hospital is back in the news again with another service closing. This means difficult journeys for our older residents and anyone without a car.
Chipping Bonhunt is a beautiful town and a great place to live. But if you are older and not so well, and if you don’t have your own transport, it can be challenging to cope as we see our public services gradually eroded.
I watched a very good BBC news item last night about the housing debate in another North Essex market town, Saffron Walden. It seemed like I was experiencing deja-vu, or should I say groundhog day?
We keep going round in circles as we try to work out where and how to build the homes that we need. Just as the District Council finally sets in motion a sensible approach to formulating a local plan, then the government changes the rules again.
What is often called “planning gain” is a system that enables councils to insist developers provide a percentage of their new homes for affordable housing (rent and shared-ownership). This is vital if local young people and families are going to be able to live in the area, and it is desperately needed here in Chipping Bonhunt.
But now the government has said that councils will have to let developers build “starter homes” instead of affordable housing. This means there is no way that developers can be forced to meet local housing needs and vital housing for local people will be lost.
I cannot help but agree with the Conservatives on our local district council, and our local MP, who are upset by the Government’s proposal to extend the “right to buy” for Council tenants to cover Housing Association tenants as well.
In Chipping Bonhunt we risk losing even more of our already limited supply of affordable housing. What makes matters even worse is the way in which the Government proposes to fund this: by forcing Councils to sell of their higher value homes when they become vacant. It’s a double whammy.
So I agree with our Conservative Councillors’ concerns, but would just like to point out to them that they campaigned for this at the General Election. It was one of the headline policies in their manifesto!
Our District Council is busy drawing up its second attempt at a Local Plan. We all hope this will be more successful than its first attempt.
What is revealing about the options now being considered is that they basically fall into two categories: extensions to existing towns and villages or completely new settlements. While there will always be opportunities to build small new developments on the outskirts of Chipping Bonhunt and our surrounding villages, only the creation of new settlements will enable sensible planning for the number of new homes that need to be built.
We need a sustainable new settlement, with proper access, schools and other facilities. This will meet local housing needs and take the pressure off our existing towns and villages.
Fortunately I don’t have to travel down to London too often. But yesterday was one of my gatherings with fellow Town Clerks down in the big smoke. Journey down to London was fine and it was a good meeting. We all escaped in time to avoid the tube strike which was starting early in the evening.
Then it all went wrong. A train had hit some cows further up the line, so everything stopped at Bishop’s Stortford.
Eventually, we caught a coach from their to Stansted Airport and then a train to Castle Lofts, arriving about 90 minutes late. Lots of desperate airline passengers at Stortford trying to get to Stansted in time to catch their flights.
Fortunately I don’t have to take the train very often. But My sympathy goes out to those who have to do so every day.
Having worked with our local residents’ group to successfully oppose Royale development’s appeal, we’re left with around £50,000 costs to share. The District Council should have opposed the appeal, in line with their decision to reject the planning application. The Planning Inspector confirmed the reasons for refusing it were sound.
One way the District Council could atone for their failure to resist the appeal (a decision shown to be wrong because the appeal was rejected) would be for them to pay our costs. We wouldn’t have needed to spend this money if the District Council had been doing its job properly.
Much wringing of hands by councillors of all parties following the budget. What’s upset them all is what the new governments is doing to housing associations who are now our only provider of local housing that many local families can afford.
Even our local Conservative councillors don’t support forcing housing associations to sell their rented homes through the so-called “right to buy.” This is because it’s highly unlikely many of them will be replaced.
Now George Osborne has made matters worse by forcing all social landlords to reduce their rents. This might be good news for some of their tenants, but he’s broken a promise made a couple of years ago that their rents should go up by inflation plus 1%. So now they’ll have to build fewer new houses, meaning even fewer new homes for our local families and young people.
I’m absolutely delighted that our Town Councillors have been vindicated in fighting the appeal by Royale Developments against the District Council’s refusal of their massive development on the eastern side of the town. The planning inspector has rejected Royale’s appeal and agreed with nearly everything the Town Council has argued. Such a shame that the District Council didn’t have the guts to follow through on their planning decision and join us in fighting the appeal.
In summary, the planning inspector refused Royale’s appeal because:
The development isn’t needed
It would have significant negative traffic impacts
It would result in the loss of productive farmland
The proposals would not amount to sustainable development
