Recently, a proposal to develop a greenfield site in Sussex into a housing development of over 100 units was discussed at a District Planning Committee meeting. The proposal had received hundreds of objections, and a specific group had been formed to save the site.
Grounds for these objections ranged from increased weight of traffic through a rural conduit out of town, through uncertain water supply and biodiversity loss, to lack of planned supporting infrastructure. Only one person spoke in favour, on behalf of the developer, and yet, committee members voted 3 to 1 in favour of the build.
Another one digs the dust
This didn’t surprise as much as it should.
I have heard a committee member say directly in open meeting that he wouldn’t want the development under discussion if it were in his back yard, but since it wasn’t, he was inclined to vote in favour, which he then went on to do.
This “Not in My Back Yard” outlook reflects a wider issue, where council members do not accurately reflect the communities they represent.
Take a look at the profile of most councils; a majority are male, and overwhelmingly they are nearing or over retirement age. The business community is usually well represented, and most are comfortably well off.
The main users of public green space, however, are people between the ages of 25 and 34, households with children, and Black and Minority Ethnic people, all groups that are poorly represented in councils across the country.
People need housing, and councils need people
Unless you have been living well and truly off grid for the better part of this century, you will have heard that there is a housing shortage in the UK. You will also have heard the connected debates about immigration, social housing, the need for economic growth and the degraded environment.
There is undoubted pressure to approve applications, unless the adverse impacts “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”.
In cases where a District Plan has yet to be adopted and a previous one has lapsed, this is even more the case, and councils will be faced with speculative developments on all sides from landowners and developers keen to take advantage of what is called “tilted balance”.
Within the status quo of wealthy, elderly councillors, this has not been addressed on a national or local level.
Not a fair fight
It was impressed on us as councillors that the grounds for objection to any development are very narrow. Members of the public may raise many issues that the Committee will be directed by the Council Planning Officers to ignore: matters such as infrastructure: traffic and water supply are on their own insufficient to deny an application, unless Highways and water companies have themselves objected.
A decision against a development, on insufficient grounds, will almost certainly lead to an appeal by the developer, taking up more of the council’s time and resources, and if it goes further, it is taxpayers’ money that will be used to hire specialist legal representation. That legal team will be pitted against whoever the deep pockets of the developer can afford to engage.
It is not, by any estimation, a fair fight.
Get Britain Building Again
I was struck at the recent meeting by how the debaters conformed to type. Broadly speaking, the right-leaning welcomed the development and were satisfied that any concerns had been resolved.
The Greens were opposed on the grounds of biodiversity loss and the monetisation of any remaining green space taking the form of a large garden nearby which is open to the public, for a fee.
They also argued that the listed buildings, classed as heritage assets, would suffer from being in close proximity to construction and earthworks, followed by new housing and increased traffic. This was not disputed: there would be harm, but it was not considered substantial enough to negate the housing need.
Following the meeting, the protest group were unsurprisingly dejected and angry. “We all know what’s happening”, one said, “but we aren’t allowed to talk about it in the meeting”.
Decisions by the people, for the people
Following the local government reorganisation, there will be fewer councillors, representing a higher number of residents, decreasing the diversity of representation.
The workload of each of those councillors will be higher because the unitary will merge the functions of two current councils. Owing to these circumstances, it will be much harder for any working person, particularly those working full-time, or those with caring responsibilities, to be an effective council member, and even less likely that they will want to apply.
No government body, in the 21st century, should consist mainly of the elderly and the wealthy, but to change this for the better, there needs to be a deeper understanding, by the population in general, of government at all levels. From 2028, Citizenship Engagement will be mandatory from Primary years in schools.
While this will help, a different approach to finding councillors might enliven what has become moribund and predictable. There is perennial political talk of bringing back National Service along with increasing spending on Defence.
Why not make a term on a council an alternative to military service for those over 18? Why not give a tax break for councillors between, say 18 and 35?
This wouldn’t immediately mean no further greenfield sites are developed on; however, I suggest that the profit motive would be less to the fore.
Young people need houses and jobs, but they will also need public, accessible green space, and a habitable future for themselves and their children in the years ahead.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
