EUV - Existing Use Value is an acronym used by developers for the value of land doing what it has always been doing. When a large house in an affluent area sells it's significant garden and two houses are built for a tidy profit , it is because the Existing Use Value as a garden was low enough for developers to buy and build on. The three factors determining a profitable development are land cost, build cost, and sale price , if sale price goes down and build cost goes up, the margin above EUV shrinks and the development ceases to be profitable because the value to the house of the large garden is equal to what developers can pay after build cost and sale price are factored in.
In the 1993 report by Hampshire County Council the heritage landscape of Stoneham park is set out as a valued strategic gap which they are comitted to protect.(Report of the county planning officer 26th July 1993) So why now 18 years later is it being opened up for development , 19 years cannot be too long a time for planners to foresee demographic pressures or affordability issues. Eastleigh residents voted for the stance taken in 1993 and paid for it , and they did not expect it to fade away in such a short time.
Eastleigh's building boom has made some people rich , in 2005 when the Pirelli development was started conditions were perfect for the developers, so perfect that developments were undertaken that would otherwise, and are clearly now, out of place ; such as building on school playing fields at Nightingale school - it was a 'dash for the cash' . 'Brownfield' developments used to work , as many 1 or 2 bedroom flats as possible were squeezed onto a site and with mortgage lenders offering credit to whoever asked politely, the gang of planners, lenders, developers and buyers , all presuming house prices would always rise were living it large in Eastleigh, but the truth was a bubble was being inflated - the lenders, developers and ,I'm sorry to say buyers, will go bust as punishment .The planners should have known better and this correction in bank lending and drop in house prices should result in them losing their jobs.
Mortgage lenders will now not lend £150,000 for a flat in Eastleigh to average wage earners, so developers will not build them on brownfield sites , as build costs have increased due to inflation (diesel costs have an impact) and sale prices have dropped, the profit margins have disappeared so that a brownfields EUV is large enough for it to be left as an industrial site.
Build costs have not just increased due to inflation, councils increasing demand for social housing squeezes developer's margins , Section 106 payments and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) squeezes developer's margins and now the drive to 'carbon neutral' developments through ever stricter building codes has squeezed developer's margins so much that they are no longer interested in brownfield sites. If councils want developers to build on brownfield sites they own, they must give them away. Don't ask why a school playing field is brownfield and don't ask why a tiny flat for £130,000 is affordable , you will be falling out of the daydream , you will be letting go of the helium balloon that is this housing bubble and watching it rocket up into the clouds where it belongs.
On brownfield sites building costs are about £110 per square foot , many industrial sites have added costs when changed to residential , like the old petrol station in Chandlers Ford which I presume will be flats - excavators are carefully removing the petrol tanks under the site, inspectors are monitoring , contamination can be an issue. Housing associations will only pay £130 per square foot, the margin is so low that developers might as well buy residential sites for development , where locations are often more sought after. The discounted rate that industrial sites offered developers has been sucked up in additional costs forced on them by local and national government , so now only the 'uplift' of greenfield sites can feed the monster that has been created.
Winchester council is trying to force developers to build 40% 'affordable' homes in even the smallest of developments and developers are lobbying against it, the councillors fear the promises made on affordable housing , daft as the concept is, cannot be achieved and as one councillor said 40% of nothing is nothing. Whilst cheap credit was available all of these people in the loop were having their piece of the pie, now it is not, they are stuck, only by opening up previously protected green spaces can enough financial incentive be offered to developers to fulfil the politicians promises. Of course you can't build one house and have 40% of it 'affordable' , the council gets cash in lieu of the 'low cost' build (perhaps you could if you made the family buying the 2 bedroom house rent out a 3rd room to a lodger -the effect would be the same but the council would not get the free money)
Eastleigh had a 12.5% reduction in government grant for 2011/2012, worse than predicted, they have made no redundancies like the private sector has, it is income from the continued development of Eastleigh that they need to fill the gaps. There are 32 vacant brownfield sites in Eastleigh with rental values greater than £45,000 p/a but national and local government have been taking ever more of the profits available to developers through S106 , CIL and now carbon neutral building codes - (to me the idea of 'tackling climate change' is ridiculous , CO2 is not a threat and I am proud that I am a climate change 'denier' , one who has an ecology degree and was a Green Party member for years, perhaps we can save that discussion for another time)
The irony of life is such that it is the latest round of green policies which apply to new builds within the time frame of the new draft plan that is forcing us to sacrifice our green spaces to developers. We need a different plan , it is not population pressure that has made EBC (and other councils)change their policy to the 'strategic gap' admirably protected by them for so long , it is the economic situation that exists , and this situation exists with the connivance of our planning department.
Saturday, 24 December 2011
Friday, 23 December 2011
FOI request on property assets
BACKGROUND:
Council Leader Keith House states in the Hampshire Chronicle on thursday December 8 2011 that income from EBC's property assets have kept council
tax lower than it otherwise would be.
If the benefits of EBC's property portfolio are enjoyed by residents I imagine the risks are also, Property companies borrow, and then invest earning profits from rental and increases in value with dividends going to shareholders, in EBC's case dividends go to council tax payers as reduced bills so they must be shareholders in the enterprise.
When property values decrease the shareholders take the loss, so in EBC's case residents must be taking on some risk, and residents therefore have a duty of oversight on the investments and just as shareholders of a property company would expect full disclosure, I expect to see the full details of Eastleigh Borough Councils property holdings
REQUEST:
I would like a list of all the property owned by the council,both land or buildings, held in whatever capacity, with purchase date and the amount paid, also please disclose the most recent valuation of these assets.
The current status of the property and details of any rental incomes associated.
Also I would like the details of all borrowings undertaken for these holdings, the terms, repayments and lender.
I expect the list to be up to date including the recent purchase of the magistrates court for I believe £500,000
This request is reasonable, and after I have seen the full extent of risk associated with our property investments perhaps you will recieve my gratitude for the wise investments made.
Yours faithfully,
Rigel Jenman
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Response to Email
I have received an email from a potential candidate for Eastleigh councillor who's opinion on housing developments is a little different from mine , this is my response :
My focus is on protecting the farmland parkland and recreational ground 'south of chestnut avenue', it would be a tragedy to develop this 'strategic gap' now, I thought that was a priority of yours also.
In my opinion there has been enough building in Eastleigh over the last 10 years and much of it has been on brownfield sites , the other half of the Pirelli site is about to be developed with 700 dwellings.
I don't understand why you say there is a need for more brownfield sites or a need for more homes on brownfield sites , the council and the MP no doubt agree, of the 9400 they plan before 2029 half will be on brownfield sites, my position is they are not planning for the impact of all these additional people and the quality of life for existing residents will be reduced.
They build houses to make revenue not to improve the lot of local people like they claim , as an example when they finish phase two at the old Pirelli site the pressure on existing infrastructure and amenities will increase a great deal. I needed to make an appointment at the doctors on newtown road for my daughter the other day , she had woken up with a very bad rash ;at 8am my wife and I had to press redial on the phone constantly for about 40 minutes just to get through and make an appointment.
That Eastleigh Practice is working flat out there is very little spare capacity.
Just like all the roads from the M3 to stoneham lane ,people sit in traffic for 30 minutes every day of their lives between the M27 and their work, and that's on a normal day if there is an accident somewhere then it is much longer.
Like Fleming park , the swimming pool is so over subscribed that you cannot take your kids swimming spontaneously on a sunday morning because it is all lane swimming and lessons.
Just like the schools , all the class sizes are very close to the maximum allowed , teachers are overworked ,pupils are not supervised sufficiently.
What about jobs ? Already we have record unemployment , if there was a potential for full employment in Eastleigh then it would rely on the regeneration of brownfield sites to employ people.
We have had immense numbers of new dwellings over the last 10 years , mostly for migrants into the area, and the impacts on services of these people are only just starting to be felt.
They build the houses to make money, to fill the increasing gaps in council funding and it is like a hidden tax on residents because provision of services declines.
By siding with Chris Huhne and therefore the council you are making it easier for them ,if you stand for election as a councillor wanting more housing on brownfield sites or not you might as well stand as a Lib Dem because they will just agree
In the plan they want 4700 dwellings on brownfield sites, that is the equivalent of 3 of the aviary's estates and that does not include the Pirelli development which will be underway already.
Eastleigh Borough Council has to persuade developers to take on a site , and provide some social housing, and then they get as much Section 106 money as they can.
Developers will be less keen to develop on brownfield , especially if it is on industrial parks like school lane , so the council will end up getting a much worse deal with regards to social housing and S106
The whole system of for profit development subsidising council salaries is crooked and the people of Eastleigh need to wake-up to the real motives or Eastleigh will become a completely urban landscape , with the crime, unemployment and social problems of London but without all the great things that living in a city can provide.
Perhaps your stance will appeal to the electorate but if so it will be because your naivete will match theirs, I am trying to set-up a neighbourhood forum but I have not been overwhelmed with responses , it is not the best time of year for campaigns perhaps.
If we can work together on a neighbourhood forum that would be great Parish Councils do not need neighbourhood forums because they can act as one anyway I would like to create a forum for all of eastleigh not in a parish council
My stance would be to protect all greenfield sites from development because of the value of these open spaces to future generations
do you agree with this or not - if you do believe they should be protected why campaign focusing on brownfield sites , where will the jobs be ?
I think you are playing into their hands because the stated desire to build 4700 on brownfield is very ambitious , perhaps unachievable , and more expensive considering contamination et cetera, we do not need to be planning housing for migrants into the area , we need to be planning for a sustainable future for existing residents so my stance is ONLY housing on brownfield sites and if the Pirelli site is developed with 700 flats and houses that should entirely go to the housing needy , freeing their houses up and solving whatever housing 'lack' there might be.
Perhaps we can plan a public debate on our different stances as part of a neighbourhood forum for the eastleigh local area.
 |
| http://www.savethesouth.org.uk/getinvolved.htm |
My focus is on protecting the farmland parkland and recreational ground 'south of chestnut avenue', it would be a tragedy to develop this 'strategic gap' now, I thought that was a priority of yours also.
In my opinion there has been enough building in Eastleigh over the last 10 years and much of it has been on brownfield sites , the other half of the Pirelli site is about to be developed with 700 dwellings.
I don't understand why you say there is a need for more brownfield sites or a need for more homes on brownfield sites , the council and the MP no doubt agree, of the 9400 they plan before 2029 half will be on brownfield sites, my position is they are not planning for the impact of all these additional people and the quality of life for existing residents will be reduced.
They build houses to make revenue not to improve the lot of local people like they claim , as an example when they finish phase two at the old Pirelli site the pressure on existing infrastructure and amenities will increase a great deal. I needed to make an appointment at the doctors on newtown road for my daughter the other day , she had woken up with a very bad rash ;at 8am my wife and I had to press redial on the phone constantly for about 40 minutes just to get through and make an appointment.
That Eastleigh Practice is working flat out there is very little spare capacity.
Just like all the roads from the M3 to stoneham lane ,people sit in traffic for 30 minutes every day of their lives between the M27 and their work, and that's on a normal day if there is an accident somewhere then it is much longer.
Like Fleming park , the swimming pool is so over subscribed that you cannot take your kids swimming spontaneously on a sunday morning because it is all lane swimming and lessons.
Just like the schools , all the class sizes are very close to the maximum allowed , teachers are overworked ,pupils are not supervised sufficiently.
What about jobs ? Already we have record unemployment , if there was a potential for full employment in Eastleigh then it would rely on the regeneration of brownfield sites to employ people.
We have had immense numbers of new dwellings over the last 10 years , mostly for migrants into the area, and the impacts on services of these people are only just starting to be felt.
They build the houses to make money, to fill the increasing gaps in council funding and it is like a hidden tax on residents because provision of services declines.
By siding with Chris Huhne and therefore the council you are making it easier for them ,if you stand for election as a councillor wanting more housing on brownfield sites or not you might as well stand as a Lib Dem because they will just agree
In the plan they want 4700 dwellings on brownfield sites, that is the equivalent of 3 of the aviary's estates and that does not include the Pirelli development which will be underway already.
Eastleigh Borough Council has to persuade developers to take on a site , and provide some social housing, and then they get as much Section 106 money as they can.
Developers will be less keen to develop on brownfield , especially if it is on industrial parks like school lane , so the council will end up getting a much worse deal with regards to social housing and S106
The whole system of for profit development subsidising council salaries is crooked and the people of Eastleigh need to wake-up to the real motives or Eastleigh will become a completely urban landscape , with the crime, unemployment and social problems of London but without all the great things that living in a city can provide.
Perhaps your stance will appeal to the electorate but if so it will be because your naivete will match theirs, I am trying to set-up a neighbourhood forum but I have not been overwhelmed with responses , it is not the best time of year for campaigns perhaps.
If we can work together on a neighbourhood forum that would be great Parish Councils do not need neighbourhood forums because they can act as one anyway I would like to create a forum for all of eastleigh not in a parish council
My stance would be to protect all greenfield sites from development because of the value of these open spaces to future generations
do you agree with this or not - if you do believe they should be protected why campaign focusing on brownfield sites , where will the jobs be ?
I think you are playing into their hands because the stated desire to build 4700 on brownfield is very ambitious , perhaps unachievable , and more expensive considering contamination et cetera, we do not need to be planning housing for migrants into the area , we need to be planning for a sustainable future for existing residents so my stance is ONLY housing on brownfield sites and if the Pirelli site is developed with 700 flats and houses that should entirely go to the housing needy , freeing their houses up and solving whatever housing 'lack' there might be.
Perhaps we can plan a public debate on our different stances as part of a neighbourhood forum for the eastleigh local area.
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
Channel 4 Property Scandel empty homes
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/4od#3266764
This show is a fusion of home makeover and panorama - heavily biased towards home makeover. In all three of the cases featured, the single mum who wants to go back to uni, the divorced ex-serviceman 'sofa surfing' , the word job is not mentioned - as I have said before it is not a houses pritce that makes it affordable, it is the relation between earnings and that price. If these people are earning then they need a better wage , if they are not , they need a job. The reason for rows of empty houses is the destruction of jobs - jobs that pay enough to afford a home.
Later in the program the presenter says coyly what we need is 'cheap money' rather than government money , what is cheap money ? I presume he is saying 'government backed' bank loans , which is basically sub-prime credit. Private companies set interest rates according to perceived risk , people without jobs often do not have a realistic plan for repayment, if the house to be repaired is not owned by the borrower who is money to be leant to ; if tenants take on the debt to improve a council owned house how can that be right ?
The issue of finance for housing was not covered , towards the end the presenter talks about an extra 50 million from the government but makes no attempt to inform the viewer about where this money comes from or goes to and what conditions are attached, I'm sure viewers would be interested in the funding of housing associations and how and where government money is dealt out.
The presenter says 'we can't wait for the Gov or councils to solve this problem' ...... why should they be let off the hook so easily - It is entirely the councils job to solve this problem, the councils allowed whole streets to fall into decay or soldthem off to developers who just sit on them waiting to build another shopping mall. These councils are judging the are to be unworthy of investment essentially because of the lack of jobs.
Later in the program the presenter says coyly what we need is 'cheap money' rather than government money , what is cheap money ? I presume he is saying 'government backed' bank loans , which is basically sub-prime credit. Private companies set interest rates according to perceived risk , people without jobs often do not have a realistic plan for repayment, if the house to be repaired is not owned by the borrower who is money to be leant to ; if tenants take on the debt to improve a council owned house how can that be right ?
The issue of finance for housing was not covered , towards the end the presenter talks about an extra 50 million from the government but makes no attempt to inform the viewer about where this money comes from or goes to and what conditions are attached, I'm sure viewers would be interested in the funding of housing associations and how and where government money is dealt out.
The presenter says 'we can't wait for the Gov or councils to solve this problem' ...... why should they be let off the hook so easily - It is entirely the councils job to solve this problem, the councils allowed whole streets to fall into decay or soldthem off to developers who just sit on them waiting to build another shopping mall. These councils are judging the are to be unworthy of investment essentially because of the lack of jobs.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
avnec meeting yesterday
I went to the AVNEC meeting yesterday at Belmont hall on the Velmore estate, there were representatives from the council and 'FIRST WESSEX' the housing assoc , the police , the school, the nursery, the council countryside team and the resident associations.
The Agenda was basically little issues relating to the estate , like some bushes were 'overgrown'
et cetera . The police sergeant talked about the latest crime in the area, gave out some leaflets about how you can now search an online map from the station and find out about the latest anti-social behavour , he was accompanied by two PCSOs who gave updates about how many people still leave their car unlocked with bags in it.
The guy from Velmore res assoc said he thought there was too much shoplifting in the co-op - I think the policeman was thinking 'thats between me and the co-op buddy'
He is trying to get a no cold-calling zone created , he needs 66% of residents to agree . The police are going to help him canvas residents by ......cold calling residents.
The Lady from 'One Community' was warning us about the TV 'switch over' she said 'there is nothing worse than an old person alone in a house being left without a working television , it really would be awful'
The lady from the Aviary residents association said she heard gunshots in the woods on saturday afternoon and there were kids on motorbikes in the fields again, she didn't think either were allowed.
Another lady from another resident association talked about the boggy football pitch , and the behaviour of local kids, the council representative ,Guy , said the kids only get the drainage sorted if they behave themselves and there is no more ASB , the police agreed .
I tried to talk when everyone else had finished about an alternative plan to the Council's house building frenzy , the loss of faith in institutions the excluded generations, the uncertainty in food and fuel the inevitable social unrest as a result of the gap between rich and poor the fraud in our economy the lies from our leaders and the media and the impacts of 'austerity' on our lives ,everyone started putting thier coats on ,
these meetings are not the place for such dialogue.
Abbe Reynaud the french encylopede in his letter to the convention just before the september massacres when 1000's were slaughtered in the streets said they were all laughing and dancing on the edge of an abyss, our community groups are just politely requesting that a litter bin is moved 20 yards up the street ,on the edge of an abyss.
RESPONSE to Comments 8/12/2011
it seems experienced police officers understand the impact of a gradual urbanization of Eastleigh , much denser housing and much fewer job opportunities will inevitably lead to a worsened level and nature of crime in the area. Perhaps some of them have worked in other areas , London, Portsmouth or Southampton perhaps.
The Agenda was basically little issues relating to the estate , like some bushes were 'overgrown'
et cetera . The police sergeant talked about the latest crime in the area, gave out some leaflets about how you can now search an online map from the station and find out about the latest anti-social behavour , he was accompanied by two PCSOs who gave updates about how many people still leave their car unlocked with bags in it.
The guy from Velmore res assoc said he thought there was too much shoplifting in the co-op - I think the policeman was thinking 'thats between me and the co-op buddy'
He is trying to get a no cold-calling zone created , he needs 66% of residents to agree . The police are going to help him canvas residents by ......cold calling residents.
The Lady from 'One Community' was warning us about the TV 'switch over' she said 'there is nothing worse than an old person alone in a house being left without a working television , it really would be awful'
The lady from the Aviary residents association said she heard gunshots in the woods on saturday afternoon and there were kids on motorbikes in the fields again, she didn't think either were allowed.
Another lady from another resident association talked about the boggy football pitch , and the behaviour of local kids, the council representative ,Guy , said the kids only get the drainage sorted if they behave themselves and there is no more ASB , the police agreed .
I tried to talk when everyone else had finished about an alternative plan to the Council's house building frenzy , the loss of faith in institutions the excluded generations, the uncertainty in food and fuel the inevitable social unrest as a result of the gap between rich and poor the fraud in our economy the lies from our leaders and the media and the impacts of 'austerity' on our lives ,everyone started putting thier coats on ,
these meetings are not the place for such dialogue.
Abbe Reynaud the french encylopede in his letter to the convention just before the september massacres when 1000's were slaughtered in the streets said they were all laughing and dancing on the edge of an abyss, our community groups are just politely requesting that a litter bin is moved 20 yards up the street ,on the edge of an abyss.
RESPONSE to Comments 8/12/2011
The Sergeants name was Sean I think, and we chatted outside for a while, he was somewhat conducive to a discussion of longer term issues and said it might need 4 hours down the pub.
it seems experienced police officers understand the impact of a gradual urbanization of Eastleigh , much denser housing and much fewer job opportunities will inevitably lead to a worsened level and nature of crime in the area. Perhaps some of them have worked in other areas , London, Portsmouth or Southampton perhaps.
Police numbers like schools are unlikely to dissuede the planners , they will just say ,when required we will build another school or expand the police.The problem with this 'just in time' local amenity provision is that they will not allow existing residents to have comfortable class sizes or police numbers ,it will be 'just too late' .My daughters class is 28 (the max is 30) this is far from optimal ;
the numbers of police have probably fallen over the last 10 years whilst all the new developments have gone up , they will not recruit significantly more police until there are real quantifiable (desperate) problems. In both of these cases I fear you will lose communities and then be struggling to get them back , and in that time policemen and teachers will be overworked and worn down.
Of course by the time they build a new school or recruit 10 more coppers we will be ready for another school and another 10 , it is as if the backlog of the housing need list transfers into every corner of social provision ,so just as providing the housing 'somehow' makes the list gets bigger , providing the schools and police 'somehow' makes the need greater. It is the Time Lag involved with providing services years too late that makes it appear that increased provision increases the numbers 'waiting'.
the numbers of police have probably fallen over the last 10 years whilst all the new developments have gone up , they will not recruit significantly more police until there are real quantifiable (desperate) problems. In both of these cases I fear you will lose communities and then be struggling to get them back , and in that time policemen and teachers will be overworked and worn down.
Of course by the time they build a new school or recruit 10 more coppers we will be ready for another school and another 10 , it is as if the backlog of the housing need list transfers into every corner of social provision ,so just as providing the housing 'somehow' makes the list gets bigger , providing the schools and police 'somehow' makes the need greater. It is the Time Lag involved with providing services years too late that makes it appear that increased provision increases the numbers 'waiting'.
Whatever the real numbers of 'housing need' planners should have dealt with them years ago, by PLANNING , their 'plans' now are playing catch-up so if they build 10,000 houses before 2029 they will inevitably be creating the need for another 10,000 houses between 2029 and 2050.
This is a senseless rush to over-develop the area and it does not benefit existing residents , it is the PUSH strategy which has demonstrably failed, as the old fella said in the meeting 'I'll be in a box by then', local groups and the feedback institutions get is under-represented by the 20-50 age group , the 50-90 age group seem to care about immediate issues like dog mess and overhanging branches , which is fine (I tend to pick it up or chop it down which is not so easy for them) perhaps it is not the age of the person involved, but thier outlook which makes them focus only on minor issues ,it as if they think it is rude to criticise council plans, when I tried to talk about this stuff they acted like I had suggested the AVNEC committee design and build a rocket ship and colonise Mars !
This is a senseless rush to over-develop the area and it does not benefit existing residents , it is the PUSH strategy which has demonstrably failed, as the old fella said in the meeting 'I'll be in a box by then', local groups and the feedback institutions get is under-represented by the 20-50 age group , the 50-90 age group seem to care about immediate issues like dog mess and overhanging branches , which is fine (I tend to pick it up or chop it down which is not so easy for them) perhaps it is not the age of the person involved, but thier outlook which makes them focus only on minor issues ,it as if they think it is rude to criticise council plans, when I tried to talk about this stuff they acted like I had suggested the AVNEC committee design and build a rocket ship and colonise Mars !
The 70-80 year olds do not think they will live to 100-110 but they might, who is planning for that success ?
I think Eastleigh should have a moratorium on new housing estates until our institutions provision of Schools , Police , Doctors , Roads ,Care homes, Utilities, et cetera is adequate or even comfortable, instead of being happy that everything is constantly at breaking point, it is existing residents whose quality of life is declining because of the constant expansion of numbers and as we are the voters we can stop it. Remember over-development of the South-East just steals a renaissance from the North.
It seems we are meant to work our whole lives away to buy a cottage in Sherfield English if we want a continued quality of life - more fool you if you are happy with your lot !
I think Eastleigh should have a moratorium on new housing estates until our institutions provision of Schools , Police , Doctors , Roads ,Care homes, Utilities, et cetera is adequate or even comfortable, instead of being happy that everything is constantly at breaking point, it is existing residents whose quality of life is declining because of the constant expansion of numbers and as we are the voters we can stop it. Remember over-development of the South-East just steals a renaissance from the North.
It seems we are meant to work our whole lives away to buy a cottage in Sherfield English if we want a continued quality of life - more fool you if you are happy with your lot !
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Denmead Parish Council
I have sent this Email to Denmead Parish Council:
Denmead Parish Council
Recently the planning officers at Eastleigh Borough Council suggested we take a look at your parish council as you are a 'frontrunner' applying the governments localism bill to planning in your area. Here in Eastleigh ,I imagine, development pressures are on a much grander scale , our council has a goal of almost 10,000 new 'dwellings' before 2026 .
As I said in the meeting the Tory plan of empowering local groups to take hold of the planning decisions impacting them is probably aimed at picturesque ,tory voting, Hampshire villages like yours. Our council has an overwhelming Lib Dem majority who have allowed, in what is a small ex-railway town , 500 new houses or flats every year for the last decade and residents are not happy.
Most of these dwellings have been occupied by migrants into the area, but there has not been job creation or infrastructure investment to match, so existing residents quality of life has inevitably been reduced. Now the council has revealed plans to build vast new housing estates on the ancient landscape of Stoneham Park , which only 10 years ago thier plans had promised to protect. These easily accesible green spaces of parkland , farmland and sportsgrounds are very precious to those living nearby and we are not convinced that the reasons for such vast developments are as benevolent as the council makes out.
It is plain to even the most casual researcher that the council itself stands to gain from it's perpetual drive to develop because of land sales, numerous government handouts, S106 and expansion. Whilst residents , voters, will only see longer queues and less open space, we suspect they plan on filling the gaps in thier funding by cashing in on our green spaces. I am hoping that although the places we live in are at different ends of the spectrum we can work together as fellows of Hampshire , we need you to help us understand how we can use this new legislation to stop the over-development of our area.
Perhaps , if you have the time , you can update us on your situation in Denmead with respect to controlling development through the new legislation.
Thanks in advance
Rigel Jenman of (inchoate) Eastleigh Local Area Neighbourhood Forum
http://www.denmeadparishcouncil.co.uk/viewsite2.php
Posters created by http://amandacobb.co.uk/2011/03/21/keep-denmead-green-campaign-posters
Denmead Parish Council
Recently the planning officers at Eastleigh Borough Council suggested we take a look at your parish council as you are a 'frontrunner' applying the governments localism bill to planning in your area. Here in Eastleigh ,I imagine, development pressures are on a much grander scale , our council has a goal of almost 10,000 new 'dwellings' before 2026 .
As I said in the meeting the Tory plan of empowering local groups to take hold of the planning decisions impacting them is probably aimed at picturesque ,tory voting, Hampshire villages like yours. Our council has an overwhelming Lib Dem majority who have allowed, in what is a small ex-railway town , 500 new houses or flats every year for the last decade and residents are not happy.
Most of these dwellings have been occupied by migrants into the area, but there has not been job creation or infrastructure investment to match, so existing residents quality of life has inevitably been reduced. Now the council has revealed plans to build vast new housing estates on the ancient landscape of Stoneham Park , which only 10 years ago thier plans had promised to protect. These easily accesible green spaces of parkland , farmland and sportsgrounds are very precious to those living nearby and we are not convinced that the reasons for such vast developments are as benevolent as the council makes out.
 |
| Another committee chewing the cud |
Perhaps , if you have the time , you can update us on your situation in Denmead with respect to controlling development through the new legislation.
Thanks in advance
Rigel Jenman of (inchoate) Eastleigh Local Area Neighbourhood Forum
http://www.denmeadparishcouncil.co.uk/viewsite2.php
Posters created by http://amandacobb.co.uk/2011/03/21/keep-denmead-green-campaign-posters
Friday, 2 December 2011
Meeting at council offices
Where parish councils exist they can make thier own plan so our area will be all of Eastleigh not in a Parish council. This is why the name will be Eastleigh Local Area Neighbourhood Forum ELANF , and hopefully the 21 people needed will be from different parts of the area and have a mix of expertise.
We have established that the magistrates court opposite the civic centre has been bought by a property developer..... called Eastleigh Borough Council ! It has , what is known as, a 'use class order' of D1 , this means that ,as the estate agent told me when I rang up to buy it , it could only be used has a doctors or dentists or vets etc , ie not residential.
This is an example of how our council has conflicted interests to say the least. As the authority who can change the 'use class order', and the purchaser of the property, there is a clear moral hazard. As commercial property it is worth, lets say £500,000 ( thats the amount agreed ), with planning permission for 50 flats it is worth at least £5 Million.
One of the alternative housing plans I plan to submit to ELANF to include in our local plan, will involve a 10 story towerblock on this site , with 50 dwellings, all for those on the housing need list, at a price of £50,000 so I'm pleased the council bought it so cheap.
Here we come Eastleigh Borough Council, ELANF is born !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)