성장을위한 arun 핵심 전략 옵션

성장을위한 Arun 핵심 전략 옵션
현지 대표자들은 정부가 11,500 채의 새 집을 "지속 불가능한"것으로 표명했으며, 협의회의 세 가지 선택 사항을 "Hobson 's Choice"라고 비난했다.
이 움직임은 지난달 미스터 허버트가 의장을 맡고 Aldingbourne, Angmering, Arundel, Barnham, Climping, Eastergate, Ford, Walberton 및 Yapton의 교구 및 마을 의원이 참석 한 회의를 따른 것입니다.
Arun District Council은 2026 년까지 지구에 11,500 채의 주택을 건설하겠다는 정부의 목표를 충족시키기위한 옵션을 제시하는 "Arun 핵심 전략 - 성장 옵션"이라는 보고서를 공개적으로 자문 해왔다.
신축 주택 부지 중 일부는 이미 지정되었지만 이사회는 약 6,000 채의 주택 위치를 파악해야합니다. 4 월 2 일에 끝난이 협의는 3 가지 옵션에 중점을 둡니다.
Bognor Regis 북서쪽 2500 가구, Littlehampton 북쪽 2,000 가구, Angmering 500 가구, 기존 내륙 정착촌의 녹색 지대에 400-900 가구가있는 지속 가능한 도시 확장.
2) 포드 (Ford)에 5,000 가구의 에코 타운 (emor-town), 지구의 다른 곳에 그린 필드 (greenfield sites)에 400-900 점이 더있다.
3) 내륙 마을의 확장 - Barnham, Eastergate 및 Westergate 주변 2,500 명, Angmering에서 1,500 명, Littlehampton에서 1,500 명, Green-Site에서 400-900 명.
이사회는 세 가지 옵션 중 하나 또는 둘을 선택하여 최종 버전이 장관에게 제출되기 전에 추가 협의가있을 핵심 전략을 마련합니다.
허버트가 의장을 맡은 회의에서, 교구 및 마을 의원들은 2026 년까지 아룬에서 11,500 채의 주택을 짓는 목표는 지속 가능하지 않다고 합의했다. 저렴한 숙박 시설에 대한 지역의 필요를 반드시 충족시키지 않을 것입니다. 그 지역에는이 규모의 주택 증가에 대처하는 데 필요한 인프라 나 일자리가 없었습니다. 그린 필드 (greenfield) 지역에 건설하고 우리 마을과 마을의 농촌 성격을 돌이킬 수없는 방식으로 변화시킬 것입니다.
의회는 Angmering에서 500 채의 주택을 짓 겠다는 제안이 지속 가능하지 않다고 판단되었지만 옵션 1과 옵션 2가 더 바람직 할 것이라는 데 동의했습니다. 옵션 2와 3은 받아 들일 수 없다는 데 동의했다.
옵션 3은 Angmering, 특히 1,500 채의 새 주택이 마을 기반 시설에서 지원 될 수 없으며 Barnham, Eastergate 및 Westergate에 손상을 입히는 것으로 나타났습니다. 2,500 채의 주택이 동등하게 피해를 입히고 도시의 불분명 함을 조성합니다.
Walberton 교구위원회가 이후 마을에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 것이라는 우려를 표명했지만, 도시 확장을 넘어 할당 된 주택은 현재 제안 된 특정 지역에 집중하기보다는 마을 전체에 걸쳐 지속 가능하게 분산되어야한다는 점에 동의했습니다.
닉 허버트 (Nick Herbert)는 다음과 같이 언급했다. "이 수준의 신축 주택이 아룬의 마을에 집중된다면, 그 지역의 농촌 성격은 돌이킬 수 없을 정도로 잃어 버리게 될 것이라고 저는 우려하고 있습니다. 우리는이 규모의 개발에 동의 할 수 없습니다. 현지 사람들은 개발 옵션이 모두 바람직하지 않은 & nbsp; Hobson 's Choice '를 받았습니다.
"나는 아룬 지구 협의회를 비난하지 않는다. 그것은 정부가 지속 가능한 주택 건설 목표를 부과 한 정부이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 평의회가 대중 주택 건설이 조용한 전원 지역 사회에 미칠 영향에 대한 마을의 진정한 관심을 인정하기를 바랍니다. "
회의에는 VAG (Villages Action Group) 대표와 Ford Eco-Town (CAFE) 반대 공동체가 참석했습니다.
1. 아룬 지구 협의회의 LDF 절차에 대한 자세한 내용은 arun. gov. uk/ldf를 방문하십시오.
2. VAG (Villages Action Group)의 웹 사이트는 villagesactiongroup. org/를 방문하십시오.
3. 포드 에코 타운 (CAFE)에 대한 커뮤니티의 웹 사이트는 nofordecotown /을 방문하십시오.
팔로우 및 공유 :
헌법 보고서.
계속 연락하십시오.
Nick Herbert와 Arundel 및 South Downs Conservative Association을 대신하여 게리 마코 웰 (Gary Markwell)이 승진 한 웨스트 하이 섹스 (West Sussex)의 Steyning 38 High Street, BN44 3YE. 이 웹 사이트는 의회 의원이었을 때 설립되었습니다. 의회가 해산됨에 따라, 2017 년 6 월 8 일 선거가 끝날 때까지 의회 의원은 없습니다.

성장을위한 Arun 핵심 전략 옵션
Herbert는 Five Villages 지역과 Angmering에서 제안 된 추가 주택에 대한 특별한 우려를 제기했습니다.
MP는 2026 년까지 지구에 수천 개의 새로운 주택을 짓는 방안을 제시 한 Arun District Council의 보고서가 발표 된 후 금요일 저녁 (1 월 23 일)과 토요일 아침 Angmering (1 월 24 일)에 Aldingbourne의 공개 회의에서 연설했다. .
'아룬 핵심 전략 - 성장 옵션'이라는 보고서는 협의회의 지역 개발 프레임 워크 (LDF) 소위원회에서 이미 검토되었으며, 2 월 12 일부터 3 월 26 일까지 공개 협의를 위해 발간 될 예정이다.
이 보고서는 Arun에서 개발을위한 다음과 같은 옵션을 제시합니다.
1) 지속 가능한 도시 확장, Bognor Regis의 북서쪽에 2500 가구, Littlehampton 북쪽에 2,000 명, Angmering에 500 명, 기존 내륙 정착촌의 가장자리에 녹지대가 400-900 개있다.
2) 포드 (Ford)에 5,000 가구의 에코 타운 (emor-town), 지구의 다른 곳에 그린 필드 (greenfield sites)에 400-900 점이 더있다.
3) 내륙 마을의 확장 - Barnham, Eastergate 및 Westergate 주변 2,500 명, Angmering에서 1,500 명, Littlehampton에서 1,500 명, Green-Site에서 400-900 명.
이사회는 세 가지 옵션 중 하나 또는 둘을 선택하여 최종 버전이 장관에게 제출되기 전에 추가 협의가있을 핵심 전략을 마련합니다. 규정 심의회는 옵션 1에 대한 선호도를 이미 나타내 었으며 옵션 2 및 3보다 지속 가능성이 높다고 생각합니다.
LDF 프로세스는 Arun이 2026 년까지 11,300 개의 새 주택 건설 의무를 이행하는 데 도움이 될 것입니다. 이 수치는 사우스 이스트 잉글랜드 지역 협의회 (SEERA)가 준비한 사우스 이스트 계획 초안에 명시된 9,300의 원래 목표에 대한 2,000의 증가를 나타냅니다. ).
Herbert는 다음과 같이 말했습니다. "우리 모두 재산 사다리를 걷지 못하는 젊은이들에게는 문제가 있다는 것을 알고 있으며, 주택의 일부 증가가 있어야한다고 생각합니다. 논쟁은 얼마나 많은 주택이 있어야하는지 그리고 그 주택을 어디에 두어야하는지에 관한 것입니다. 그러나 사우스 이스턴, 웨스트 서 섹스 및 아룬에 대한 제안 된 주택의 전반적인 수준은 유지할 수 없을 정도로 높다고 생각합니다.
"우리는 이미 20 년 동안 웨스트 서 섹스에 제안 된 주택 수가 58,000에서 74,000 이상으로 증가한 상황을 이미 보았습니다. 그 중 10,000 명이 Shoreham에 흡수되었지만, 지역 총회를 통해 할당 된 상당한 양의 추가 주택과 추가로 있어야한다고 정부가 요구 한 Arun에 9,300 대에서 11,300. 그리고 그것은 우리 자신의 지방 당국을 매우 어려운 위치에 놓습니다. 그 주택을 어디에 할당 할 것인가에 관해서는 매우 어려운 결정이 내려져야 할 것입니다.
"우리 모두는 서 섹스 (West Sussex) 공동체로서 농촌 마을을 일종의 교외 교외로 바꿀 것인지 여부를 결정해야한다고 생각합니다. 이러한 결정이 잘못되면 향후 20 년간 발생할 수 있기 때문입니다. 우리 마을 사람들은 자신의 정체성을 잃고 개발은 서로에게 달려 있음을 알게 될 것입니다. 나는 지역 사람들이 그것을보고 싶지 않다고 생각한다. 나는이 지역의 성격을 돌이킬 수 없게 바꿀 것이라고 생각한다.
"생태 마을과 우리 마을에 영향을 줄 수있는 개발 모두의 지속 가능한 개발에 관해서는 물론 심각한 논쟁이 있습니다. 우리는 제안 된 규모로 개발을 지속하기위한 기반 시설을 확보 했습니까? 우리 모두는 A27의 문제, 새로운 아룬 델 우회에 대한 필요성, 공공 서비스에 대한 압력, 이 지역의 물 공급에 대한 압박 등을 알고 있습니다.
"추가 주택은 우리 시골과 우리 마을에서 잔해를 일으키지 않으면 서 지속 가능해야합니다."
허버트 대변인은 포드 (Ford)에 제안 된 에코 타운은 주택 수치가 아룬의 목표에 추가 될 수 있기 때문에 마을에 대한 상황이나 개발 압력을 돕지 않을 것이라고 덧붙였다. 그는 포드 (Ford)의 신규 주택이 알딩 번 (Aldingbourne)의 개발을 막을 것이라고 믿는 에코 타운의 일부 발기인을 강력히 비난했다.
MP는 "이런 종류의 거지 - 이웃 접근법은 이웃 공동체에게 너무 비우호적이며 불공평하다. 우리 마을의 농촌 특성을 보호하기 위해 모두 공통의 관심사를 공유해야합니다. "
Arun District Council의 LDF (Local Development Framework) 프로세스에 대한 자세한 내용은 arun. gov. uk/cgi-bin/buildpage. pl? mysql=2118을 참조하십시오.
2. 2008 년 12 월 16 일에 Arun District Council의 LDF 소위원회에 제출 한 & lsquo; Grows for Options의 보고서를 보려면 arun. gov. uk/assets/Agenda/LDF/LDF_Sub_Framework_Agenda_16_12_08.pdf를 방문하십시오.
팔로우 및 공유 :
헌법 보고서.
계속 연락하십시오.
Nick Herbert와 Arundel 및 South Downs Conservative Association을 대신하여 게리 마코 웰 (Gary Markwell)이 승진 한 웨스트 하이 섹스 (West Sussex)의 Steyning 38 High Street, BN44 3YE. 이 웹 사이트는 의회 의원이었을 때 설립되었습니다. 의회가 해산됨에 따라, 2017 년 6 월 8 일 선거가 끝날 때까지 의회 의원은 없습니다.

Arun District Council & Local Plan에 대한 이의 제기.
이 블로그의 목적은 대중들이 아룬 지구 협의회의 지역 계획에 반대하는 이유를 공유 할 수있는 포럼을 만드는 것입니다.
포드 엔터프라이즈 허브로 태그 달기.
Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 간행물 버전 자문에 대한 Ford Enterprise Hub (FEH) 응답.
다음은 Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 간행물 버전, 정책 맵 및 지속 가능성 평가 컨설팅에 대한 Ford Enterprise Hub (FEH)의 표현입니다.
포드 엔터프라이즈 허브 (FEH)는 엔터프라이즈 BognorRegis 공개 상담에 제출합니다.
다음에서 BognorRegis 공개 상담에 대한 Ford Enterprise Hub (FEH) 제출 자료를 읽을 수 있습니다.
Ford Enterprise Hub (FEH) 제출.
Ford Enterprise Hub (FEH) 제출은 여기에서 읽을 수 있습니다 :
포드 엔터프라이즈 허브 란 무엇입니까?
나는 포드 엔터프라이즈 허브 (Ford Enterprise Hub)가 무엇인지 물어 본 누군가와 최근에 이야기를 나누고 있었다.
Ford Enterprise Hub (FEH) 개념은 2011 년 이후 Arun District가 직면 한 운송, 고용 및 토지 이용 문제를 해결하기위한 대담한 시도입니다. 사용하지 않은 비행장과 활용도가 낮은 주요 철도역을 중심으로 포드에 있습니다.
FEH 제안은 토니 딕슨 (전 구속자), 해럴드 홀 (전 카운티 카운슬러) 및 존 펜 폴드 (구 교구 참사관)의 지역 사회 구성원 3 명이 작성한 것입니다. John Penfold는 2010 년 1 월 FEH를 떠나 새로운 사업에 집중했습니다.
그들은 토지 소유자가 아닌 개발자가 아니며 정치적 영향력을 행사할 수 없으며 Ford의 개발에 유익한 관심을 보이지 않습니다. 그들은 단순히 2004 년 LDF가 시작된 이래로 기획 과정에서 적극적으로 (실제로는 적극적으로) 참여한 지역 사회의 일원입니다.
FEH는 우리 공동체 내에서 오는 우리 자신의 지역 공동체의 미래에 대한 비전이며, 이는 관심사, 경험 및 지역 지식에 기인하는 비전입니다.
따라서 FEH는 지역주의 기반의 초기 계획으로 적절하게 기술 될 수 있습니다.
FEH는 2004 년 10 월 JDAC (Joint Downland Area Committee)와 2005 년 1 월 웨스트 서 섹스 지역 교통 계획 (West Sussex Local Transport Plan)에 제출되었을 때 민주적 과정에 도입되었습니다.
2005 년 4 월에 JDAC은 FEH 개념과 관련하여 다음과 같은 결의안을 통과 시켰습니다 (이에 관한 회의록은 2005 년 12 월에 Arun 내각에 제출되었고 2006 년 1 월에는 Full Council에 제출되었습니다).
(i)위원회는 논문의 내용을 기록하고 새로운 지역에 대한 접근에서 Arun 강 서쪽의 토지 이용 및 수송 계획에 대한 적극적인 접근을 위해 제시된 기회에 대해 적절한 고려를하는 것을 염려한다 개발 프레임 워크, 카운티 교통 계획 및 해안 서 섹스를위한 하위 지역 전략.
(ii) 2011 년 서부 Arun 강 서쪽 지역 개발에 대한 모든 옵션이 고려 될 것으로 기대된다.
(iii)위원회는 LDF의 일부를 구성 할 지역 개발 문서 (Local Development Documents) 프로그램에 주목하고, 지역 사회 참여 선언문, 핵심 전략, 지속 가능한 지역 사회 계획 (DPD) 및 할당 (Allocations)에 대해이위원회가 언제 협의 될 것인지 조언을 요청하며, 특수 문자 SPD 영역.
(iv)위원회는 주요 개발 이전 또는 그와 병행하여 인프라를 제공한다는 원칙에 대한 현재의 입장을 환영하며, ADC가 Arun 강 서쪽 개발에이 원칙을 적용 할 것을 촉구하고, 그 빛의 Arundel에 A27.
JDAC 결의안은 아룬 지구 서부 서 섹스위원회가 FEH 개념에 의해 제기 된 기회를 적절하게 고려하도록 요구합니다.
그런 다음 2007 년 10 월에 FEH 개념이 정부의 에코 타운 프로그램에 제출되었습니다.
개발자와 토지 소유자 컨소시엄 인 FAVG (Ford Airfield Vision Group)도 제출했습니다.
정부 당국자는 입찰가가 두 가지로 선정 된 두 곳의 입찰가가 정부 기관, 정부 부처, 지방 당국 등과의 회의 불필요한 중복을 피하기 위해 하나의 정교한 입찰가를 만들기 위해 함께 협력 할 것을 요청했다.
FAVG와 FEH는 CLG에 대한 하나의 세련된 에코 타운 응답의 생산과 제출을 조정하기 위해 두 가지 보완적인 접근법을 통합하기 위해 함께 노력했습니다.
포드에 대한 세련된 FAVG / FEH 입찰은 고려중인 최종 10 개 지역에서 후보작으로 선정되었지만 앞으로는 선정되지 않았습니다.
이제 "협의회가 주도하는 커뮤니티 캠페인"에 관한이 블로그의 섹션을 읽고 에코 타운 제안이 아룬 지구 협의회에서 공개적으로 고려되었는지 아니면 선발위원회가 위선인지 여부를 직접 결정할 수 있습니다.
왜 지금이 중요한가?
Eco Town 프로세스는 LDF / Local Plan의 필수적인 부분입니다. 2009 년 2 월 12 일부터 4 월 2 일까지 성장을위한 LDF 핵심 전략 옵션 논의는 LDF 옵션 2를 & # 8220; 옵션 2 : Ford & # 8221;의 'eco town' & # 8211; 협의회가 지구의 에코 타운 원칙에 위배되는 "협의회 주도의 지역 사회 캠페인"을 주도하고 있습니다!
에코 타운 셀렉트위원회의 결과가 LDF / 지역 계획 (즉, 새로운 정착에 대한 정당한 근거)을 알리기 위해 협의회에서 사용된다면 대중의 구성원은 협의회의 모든 주민, 특히 Angmering과 Eastergate / Westergate / Barnham의 사람들에게 공정하고 정당한 시간이었습니다. 아니면 평의회 편향 되었습니까?
협의회의 편견에 명백한 증거가 있다고 생각되면 반대 의견에 그것을 포함시켜야합니다. 그러면 문제는 피할 수 없으며 기획 감독관은 독립적이고 준 사법적인 의견을 제시해야합니다.

Arun District Council & Local Plan에 대한 이의 제기.
이 블로그의 목적은 대중들이 아룬 지구 협의회의 지역 계획에 반대하는 이유를 공유 할 수있는 포럼을 만드는 것입니다.
자연 법의 법칙에 태그가 붙어 있습니다.
토니 딕슨 (Tony Dixon) 전 의원에 의한 상담 제출.
나는 이것을 재 질문하도록 요구 받았다.
협의 및 amp; 아룬 지구 협의회의 목표는 지역 계획 초안입니다.
토니 딕슨 (Tony Dixon) - 번햄 워드 (Barnham Ward)의 이전 아룬 지구 평의원.
나는 또한 Ford Enterprise Hub (FEH)의 일원이며 공동 Downland 지역위원회를 통해 가져온 지역 기반의 계획 이니셔티브이며 국가 생태 도시 프로그램에 제출되었습니다. fordenterprisehub를 참조하십시오.
2012 년 9 월 2 일
포드 비행장의 브라운 필드에 대한 새로운 합의의 경우.
a) brownfield 땅의 사용.
b) 새로운 합의의 이점.
c) A259에서 A27 로의 새로운 연결 도로.
d) A27 아룬 델 바이 패스.
e) 운송 허브.
g) 새로운 정착지와 지역 계획 초안의 비교.
a) 협의회가 주도하는 지역 사회 캠페인.
b) 자연 법의 위반.
c) 정부로부터 물질적 배려를 원천 징수한다.
라. 기획안에 관한 내각 위원 의견
e) 정보 보급에 대한 편견.
f) 공공 협의의 결함.
g) 에코 타운 선정위원회 멤버십.
h) LDF / 지역 계획 및 결과 지연.
i) 협력 할 의무.
2012 년 2 월, 의회는 주택 대기자 명단에 4,933 가구가 있었고, 유전 적 박탈에 갇혀있는 주택 사다리에 발을 디딜 수없는 개인과 가족이 있었으며, 이들 가구 중 많은 사람들이 우선적으로 주택이 필요하다고 확인했습니다.
반대 : 13.2.3 절에서 지방 계획 초안은 주택 등록자 숫자 1,800을 인용하며 밴드 D의 거주자를 제외하는 것으로 보입니다.
2009 년 5 년 동안 아룬 (Arun)은 전체 동남아 지역에서 주택 수요가 가장 빠르게 증가했습니다.
Shelter에 따르면 Arun에서는 평균 가격 집 (£ 214,953)을 구입하는 데 평균 임금의 12 배 (17,888 파운드)가 소요됩니다. 평균 임금이 낮을수록 저렴한 주택의 필요성이 커지며 아룬 (Arun)은 저렴한 주택 부족분을 가지고 있습니다.
Ham, River, Pevensey, Marine 및 Hotham 병동 모두는 심각한 박탈로 고통받습니다 - 남동 최악의 경우.
이 협의회는 몇 년 동안 주택 공급에 관해 지속적으로 제공되어 왔으며, 이것이 SE 계획에서 주택 할당이 증가한 이유입니다. 따라 잡을 필요가 있습니다. 문구는 불분명하지만위원회는 두 가지 옵션에 대해 컨설팅을하고 있다고 생각합니다. 400 및 565 개 주택
지원 : 나는 565 개의 주택에 대한 필요성을지지한다.
이 제출은 포드 비행장 (아마도 웨스트 서 섹스에서 가장 큰 브라운 필드 사이트)에서 브라운 필드에 대한 새로운 합의를위한 경우를 만들 것입니다.
또한 평의회가 포드 비행장의 새로운 정착지를 평등하게 고려하고 다른 모든 LDF / 지역 계획 옵션을 고려하지 않고 자연 법의 법을 위반했다는 증거를 제공 할 것입니다.
전 지구 위원장으로서 저는 각 회원이 자신의 행동에 대해 개별적으로 책임이 있음을 알고 있습니다.
이 제출을 통해 저는 회원들에게 협의회의 행동과 관련된 우려를 알리고 협의회에서 인식 된 모든 위법 행위를 해결할 수있는 기회를 제공하고자합니다. 개별 회원이 취해야 할 조치가있을 경우이를 결정하는 것입니다.
(공청회 때까지 지역 협의회의 행위와 관련된 일부 문제는 유보 될 수 있음을 인정하지만 지구 계획이 EiP에서 불리하다고 판명되면 육군을 약탈 계획 응용 프로그램으로 넓게 남겨 둘 것입니다 더 이상 18 개월이 지났을 경우 지구에 큰 재앙이 될 것입니다. 따라서 회원들이이 문제를 조기에 해결할 수있는 기회가 주어진다면 지구의 이익이됩니다.)
그러나, 나는 또한 협의회의 행위와 관련된 몇 가지 점들이 회원들 앞에서 주목을 받았음을 인정해야한다. & # 8230; & # 8230; 위원회의 행동을지지하는 것 이외에 어떤 회원도 아무 것도하지 않았다는 것을 알지 못합니다.
포드 비행장의 브라운 필드에 대한 새로운 합의의 경우.
새로운 NPPF의 12 가지 핵심 계획 원칙 중 하나는 "환경 가치가 높지 않다면 이전에 개발 된 토지를 재사용하여 토지의 효과적인 사용을 장려해야한다 (브라운 필드 토지).
지역 계획 초안의 13.1.14 항은 이전에 개발되지 않은 토지의 개발은 녹지가 개발 될 수없는 곳에서만 고려되어야한다고 주장했다.
지원 : 본인은 13.1.14 항의 진술을지지합니다.
반대 : 협의회는 포드 비행장 (아마도 웨스트 서 섹스에서 가장 큰 브라운 필드 사이트)의 브라운 필드에 대한 새로운 합의를 의도적으로 피하고 다른 모든 LDF / 로컬 플랜 옵션과 동등한 조건으로 고려했습니다.
반대 : 협의회는 Ford의 brownfield 개발에 대한 정당성을 인정하고 대신 지구 전역에 걸친 녹지대의 개발을 정당화하기 위해 Eco Town Select Committee의 결과를 활용하고자합니다. 이 제출은 에코 타운 셀렉트위원회의 발견이 불투명하다고 주장 할 것이다.
새로운 합의의 이점.
새로운 정착촌은 마을 확장에 비해 많은 이점을 제공합니다.
새로운 정착촌은 처음부터주의 깊게 계획 될 수 있으므로 기획자는 주택, 열린 공간, 여가, 레크리에이션, 고용, 에너지, 운송 및 환경 문제를 해결하는 데있어 현재 최상의 실무 기술을 도입 할 수 있습니다.
그들은 "도시 벼락치기"또는 "충전물 개발"의 필요성을 줄임으로써 기존의 도시 건설 환경을 보호합니다.
그들은 평지보다는 가족 주택을 건설 할 수있는 기회를 제공합니다. 합리적인 주택 적자는 단편적인 방식이 아닌 실질적으로 해결 될 수 있습니다.
brownfield 토지를 이용하는 새로운 정착촌은 지구의 다른 지역의 녹지 위치에 대한 압력을 줄입니다. 모든 1 에이커의 갈색 지 (brownfield) 토지를 사용하면 1 에이커의 녹지가 구해집니다!
마을 확장을위한 주요 목표는 보건 시설, 학교, 도로, 하수도 등 기존 인프라에 대한 압력을 활용하고 그에 따라 증가시키는 것입니다. 반면에 새로운 정착지는 기존 인프라에 훨씬 적은 부담을주지 않고 효과적으로 분산 압력.
예를 들어, 지역의 기존 하수도 네트워크는 이미 대처하기 위해 노력하고 있습니다. Ford의 새로운 정착지는 인접한 하수도 시설을 활용하여 기존 네트워크에 추가적인 압력을 가하지 않습니다.
포드에있는 홍수 지대 1의 새로운 정착지는 Felpham (협의회가 제안한 전략적 배당 계획 인 Eastergate / Aldingbourne / Barnham에서 하류에 위치)에서 Arun 강으로의 쉬운 배수로 범람 위험을 줄입니다.
온 사이트 에너지 생산은 대규모 정착지에서 더 실용적입니다. 열과 전력이 결합되어 에너지 효율과 지속 가능성이 향상됩니다.
새로운 정착촌의 도로 레이아웃은 수년에 걸쳐 진화하지 않으며 처음부터주의 깊게 계획됩니다. A259와 A27 사이의 연결 도로 (Ford에서 철도 연결)가 가능합니다.
새로운 NPPF는 지역 계획 당국이 해당 지역 내에서 국가적으로 중요한 인프라를 포함한 전략적 인프라의 필요성을 고려해야한다는 것을 분명히합니다. 포드 (Ford)의 새로운 정착촌은 A27 아룬 델 (Arundel) 우회로에 상당한 기여를 할 수 있습니다.
하나의 새로운 정착지가 지구 전체에 퍼져있는 여러 가지 소규모 개발보다 훨씬 큰 규모의 인프라 기부를 제공 할 수 있습니다. 예를 들어 Ford Eco Town의 발기인은 총 계획 의무를 2 억 파운드로 계산했습니다.
반대 : 협의회는 새로운 합의를 통해 실현 될 수있는 것보다 훨씬 낮은 수준의 기획 의무에 정착하고 있습니다.
우리는 지난 60 년 동안의 도시 / 마을 확장이 성공적이어서 우리가 그것을 반복하고 싶다면 - 왜 아룬 지역 경제가 그렇게 열악한가?
A259에서 A27로 연결되는 새로운 링크.
내부 투자를 유치하기 위해 협의회는 전략적 도로망 (SRN)에 쉽게 접근 할 필요가 있음을 인정해야합니다. 전략적 도로망 (SRN)은 Arun의 경우 동 / 서행 A27과 서쪽 A3 및 M3의 남 / 북 경로를 의미합니다. A24와 A23은 동쪽에 위치해 있으며, 모두 이중 주행 도로이며 상업 교통을 지원할 수 있습니다.
예를 들어, Comet Corner의 A259에서 Ford의 철도 노선을 연결하는 새로운 연결 도로를 Arundel Bypass (분홍색 / 파란색 경로)로 제안하면 Bognor Regis는 A27 및 동쪽의 SRN과의 접근성을 향상시킬 수 있습니다 .
Bognor Regis와의 새로운 경로를 제공함으로써 새로운 트래픽과 기존의 트래픽을 효과적으로 분산시켜 기존 도로의 혼잡을 줄이기보다는 A27로가는 3 개의 경로로 트래픽을 분산시킬 수 있습니다. 대조적으로 A29를 중심으로 한 대규모 개발에 초점을 맞추는 제안은 기존 인프라 스트럭처에 압력을 가하기 만합니다.
A27, A259 및 새로운 연결 도로를 통해 Five Villages 주변에 "다이아몬드 모양의"순환 도로 "가 효과적으로 형성되어 북동쪽 및 북서쪽에서 Bognor로 /에서 B27으로 그리고 / A3 및 A24의 지정된 SRN 북 / 남 경로.
"순환 도로"는 5 개 마을의 시골 지정을 보존하고 보호합니다.
반대 : 협의회는 Bognor Regis와 동쪽의 Strategic Road Network를 연결할 가능성을 제대로 고려하지 않았다.
포드의 새로운 정착촌은 주택 수요를 충족시키는 것 이상으로 가능하지만 서 섹스 연안 하부 지역의 경제 잠재력 실현을 추구하는 지역적, 지역적 및 국가적 정책의 전달에 결정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 보인다. Bognor Regis 및 Littlehampton.
더 나은 유급 직업에 대한 내부 투자 유인은 SRN과 그 마을에서의 접근 및 새로운 정착촌에서의 사업에 대한 주요 개선을 요구합니다.
Arundel 우회의 주요 목표는 다음과 같습니다.
Arundel 마을에 대한 근신의 근절을 제거합니다. 현재 도로 주변에 사는 사람들을위한 소음 및 대기 오염 제거. 트렁크로드의 안전 및 교통 흐름 개선. 교육구의 경제 잠재력을 완전히 실현하고 주요 투자를 유치 할 수있는 조건을 조성하기위한 전략적 도로망 완성. Arun의 지속 가능한 운송 및 지속 가능한 성장을 계획하는 지방 당국을위한 자유. 여행 시간을 대폭 단축하여 달성 한 지구 차원의 탄소 절약. A27의 혼잡을 피하기 위해 사우스 다운스 국립 공원을 통해 북쪽으로, 그리고 남쪽으로 마을을 통해 쥐를 쫓는 것을 억제하십시오. 지방 당국이 다음을 통해 로컬 네트워크를 개선 할 수있는 자유 :
a) 포드로드, 아룬 델 (Arundel)의 HGV 및 교회 차선, Climping 및 B2132 및 B2233의 HGV 이동 제어에 대한 금지.
b) A259 및 A284의 교통 안전 및 교통 안전 개선.
c) Crossbush, 역, 타운, 병원 및 Havenwood Park 사이의 A27의 현행 노선에 보행자 및 자전거 이용자를 안전하게 제공합니다.
지난 10 년 동안 아룬 지구 협의회 (Arun District Council)는 주택 수요를 아룬 델 (Aundel)의 A27 개선과 연결하는 것을 거부했습니다. 이 정책은 이제 새로운 NPPF의 목표와 상충됩니다.
새로운 NPPF의 162 항은 다음과 같이 말하고있다 : 지역 계획 당국은 다른 당국과 공급자들과 함께 다음을 수행해야한다 :
폐기물, 보건, 사회 복지, 교육, 홍수 위험 및 해안 변화 관리 및 예측 충족 능력에 대한 인프라의 품질과 용량을 평가합니다. 요구; 해당 분야의 국가적으로 중요한 인프라를 포함한 전략적 인프라의 필요성을 고려해야합니다.
에코 타운 프로세스의 엄격한 환경 적 맥락에서 바이 패스에 대한 기여는 적절하지 않았을 것입니다. 그러나 우회는 새로운 유형의 정산에서 받아 들일 수 있습니다.
반대 : 포드 비행장의 새로운 정착지가 Arundel 우회로의 실질적인 계획 의무 (또는 사회 기반 시설 레비)를 창출 할 수있는 가능성에 대해서는 의회가 적절히 조사하지 못했습니다.
포드 (Ford)에서의 개발은 교통 인프라 개선을위한 촉매제를 제공 할 것이며, 대중 교통을 향한 모달 전환을 촉진하여 새로운 대중 교통 허브를 형성 할 것입니다.
포드는 이상적으로 자리 잡고 있습니다. 포드 (Ford) 철도역은 사우스 코스트 메인 라인 (South Coast Main Line)을 사이에두고 있으며 아룬 계곡 (Arun Valley) 선 아래에 있습니다. 사우스 코스트 메인 라인 (South Coast Main Line)은 워싱 (Worthing), 브라이튼 (Brighton) 및 동쪽과 포츠머스, 사우스 햄튼, 본머스 및 그 너머 서쪽으로 연결됩니다. 아룬 계곡 노선은 개 트윅, 호샴, 이스트 크로이던 및 런던으로 연결됩니다.
매우 독특한 전략적 위치에도 불구하고 Ford Railway Station에는 11 개의 공용 주차 공간 (직원 2 명을 추가로 수용 할 수있는 곳)이 있으며 국가에서 가장 활용도가 낮은 런던 메인 라인 스테이션이 될 수 있습니다! Ford Station은 해당 지역의 운송 지속 가능성에 크게 기여할 수있는 자산입니다.
A27에서 A259로 연결되는 도로의 조합으로 포드에서 철도를 연결하고 수평 교차점을 제거하고 충분한 주차 공간을 갖춘 파크 웨이 접근법을 채택하여 새로운 개발뿐만 아니라 전체 지구, 새로운 포드 철도역 이전 서쪽으로 약 400 야드는 지구 전체에 봉사하고 북쪽, 동쪽 및 서쪽으로 철도 서비스를 이용할 수있는 주요 통로 역할을하는 다중 모달 운송 허브의 중심이 될 것입니다.
포드 철도역은 보그 노르 (Bognor), 리틀 햄튼 (Littlehampton), 파이브 빌리지 (Five Villages) 및 아룬 델 (Arundel) 사이에 지리적으로 같은 거리에 있으며, 주차가 부적절하고 Bognor 및 Littlehampton의 경우 기존의 모든 Arun District 역에 대한 압력을 완화하기에 이상적입니다. "end of line"스테이션입니다.
Barnham의 경우 통근자가 대부분의 노상 주차를하며 지역 시설을 이용하는 고객에게는 주차 공간이 거의 없습니다. 이것은 지역 거래자들에게 해로운 영향을 미친다. Barnham에는 확장의 여지가 없습니다.
현재 많은 버스 서비스는 빈약하거나 존재하지 않습니다. Bordor와 Littlehampton 사이의 정기적이고 강화 된 버스 서비스는 Ford Parkway와 Ford의 산업 / 상업 또는 주거 지역을 경유하여 출퇴근이 가능 해지고, 출퇴근을위한 쉽고 편리한 여행을 가능하게합니다. 지구는 운송 지속 가능성에 더욱 기여하고 있습니다.
포드의 신규 거주자는 Coastal Expressway 서비스를 이용하기에 이상적으로 위치하고 있습니다.
반대 : 지역 계획서 초안은 자동차를 기반으로하고 있으며 철도 및 버스와 같은 대안적이고보다 지속 가능한 운송 수단의 기회를 제대로 탐색하지 못했습니다.
Arun의 주요 산업은 전통적으로 원예 / 농업, 관광 및 소매업입니다. 본질적으로 교육 구는 웨스트 서 섹스의 다른 지역과 비교했을 때 저임금 및 크게 계절 경제입니다.
Nomis에 따르면 2010 년 아룬에서 일하는 사람들을위한 평균 총 주간 임금은 399 파운드 였는데 웨스트 서 섹스의 7 개 협의회 중 가장 낮습니다. This compares to a West Sussex average of £479 (20 per cent higher) and a South East average of £523 (31 per cent higher). The national average is £500 (25 per cent higher).
Low wage levels create an unacceptably high level of outbound commuting. Currently around 37 per cent of the working population leave the district each day to work.
Arun ranks 63rd out of 67 local authorities in South East England when it comes to the ratio of jobs to population aged 16-64.
The 2003 Local Plan has failed to attract employment interest for the Oldlands Farm site. In spite of this, the council remains committed to planning its employment provision in this area.
Proposals for Airfield Park seem fanciful and the council does not appear to have a strategy to attract employers to Airfield Park. It seems that the council’s continuing interest in this location may have more to do with a desire to salvage the failed 2003 Local Plan rather than to consider any alternative options. A vanity project!
In a choice between Tangmere and Airfield Park employers will choose the one that is nearest to the A27. A local company Respironics (now owned by Philips) moved from Bersted to Tangmere to be closer to the A27. The council appears to have learned no lessons from this.
OBJECTION: The council has provided little credible evidence to support the viability of its employment proposals for Airfield Park.
Comparison of a new settlement and the draft Local Plan.
It is interesting to compare the differences in proposed infrastructure provision for the district between any new settlement (by using the former Eco Town proposals as a benchmark) and Arun’s draft Local Plan.
It’s not an easy comparison to make because the draft Local Plan is so vague in many places, and the Eco Town process had strict environmental “rules”, but here’s an attempt:
I have excluded the development proposals in Wick and North Littlehampton which, because of the delays in Arun’s LDF/Local Plan, have been able to bypass the Local Plan process. More on that later in this submission!
OBJECTION: The council has failed to properly explore how it can maximise planning obligation for the district.
The council has breached the laws of natural justice in its attempts to avoid open minded consideration of a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford Airfield (possibly the largest available brownfield site in West Sussex), on equal terms and alongside all other LDF/Local Plan options.
This calls into question the soundness of the Local Plan.
Council-led community campaign.
The council appears to be unique in that it is the only council in the country to have actually led a campaign against one of its own LDF options – the Eco Town (new settlement) proposals (LDF Option 2).
On 3rd April 2008, the council issued a press release announcing “ an emergency meeting of the Council’s Cabinet has been called for Monday 14th April to kick-start a community campaign against the proposal ” and “ the Leader of Arun District Council, Cllr Mrs Gillian Brown, signalling the start of a council-led community campaign against the proposal said she was appalled that no account had been taken of the Council’s consistent and overwhelming objections to an eco-town at Ford.”
It is clear from this statement that not only had the council already decided against an Eco Town at Ford but that its intention was to start a campaign against those proposals.
At the special cabinet meeting those cabinet members present voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation: “ the council, together with local organisations, mount a campaign against the principle of Eco-Towns in the District ”.
The existence of the “ council-led community campaign ” throughout the early LDF/Local Plan process calls into question the soundness of the LDF/Local Plan for the following reasons:
OBJECTION: Given that the cabinet voted to “ mount a campaign against the principle of Eco-Towns in the District ” those cabinet members, in effect, predetermined their position with regard to consideration of LDF option 2.
OBJECTION: By leading a campaign against one of its own LDF options the council favoured residents in one section of the community at the expense of residents in other locations like Angmering, Eastergate/Westergate/Barnham, Wick and North Littlehampton.
OBJECTION: An Eco Town is one type of new settlement which sets a very high bar for environmental considerations. The council has used the findings of its Eco Town Select Committee as a means of avoiding consideration of any other types of new settlement.
Breach of the laws of natural justice.
The laws of natural justice have underpinned the English legal system since Roman times. They protect against arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fair play.
The principles of natural justice form two basic legal safeguards that govern all decisions by judges or government officials when they take quasi-judicial or judicial decisions. One is nemo judex in parte sua (no person may judge their own case) and the other is audi alteram partem (the right to be heard).
(1) Audi alteram partem (Latin for, hear the other side): no accused, or a person directly affected by a decision, shall be condemned unless given full chance to prepare and submit his or her case and rebuttal to the opposing party’s arguments.
(2) Nemo judex in causa sua (Latin for, no man a judge in his own case): no decision is valid if it was influenced by any financial consideration or other interest or bias of the decision maker.
These principles apply to decisions of all governmental agencies and tribunals, and judgments of all courts, which may be declared to be of having no effect (ultra vires) if found in contravention of natural justice.
OBJECTION: A council cannot campaign against something (the “ council-led community campaign ” against the principle of an Eco Town) and at the same time consider it with an open mind (the Eco Town Select Committee) – Nemo judex in causa sua. Bias of the decision maker! The council has breached the laws of natural justice.
Res ipsa loquitor!
OBJECTION: The findings of the Eco Town Select Committee are unsound.
Withholding a material consideration from the government.
When the findings of the Eco Town Select Committee were submitted to the government the council did not make the government aware that it was also leading a campaign against the principle of an Eco Town in the district.
OBJECTION: The council deliberately withheld a material consideration from the government.
Comments by the Cabinet Member for Planning.
When Arun District Council announced its Core Strategy Issues and Options public consultation in the autumn of 2005 it organised a series of public exhibitions – 5 days each in Littlehampton, Bognor and Arundel. The Five Villages area was excluded (so was Angmering) even though it has a combined population far higher than Arundel and it was also an area under consideration for large-scale development, whereas Arundel was not.
Despite protests from the public and District Councillors Arun refused to hold an exhibition in the Five Villages.
Residents in Aldingbourne were already aware of, and sensitive to, development proposals made at the time of the Structure Plan and were concerned at the Council’s refusal to provide an LDF exhibition in the Five Villages. They requested a public meeting.
At the public meeting residents were briefed on the newly introduced LDF procedure, the nature of the first public consultation and were each given a copy of the consultation questionnaire. These were completed by residents in the privacy of their own homes. They formed a large part of the consultation response.
There would have been no need for a public meeting if the Council had carried out its consultation properly and included an exhibition in the Five Villages.
Then, on 24th September 2008, Councillor Bower, Cabinet Member for Planning and one of the leaders of the “ council-led community campaign ” against the principle of an Eco Town stated on the BBC’s Inside Out programme that;
Cllr. Bower – “ 50% of the responses came from one parish namely Aldingbourne and of those responses something like 91% of those who responded from Aldingbourne all said that Ford should be in the top three of their choices. It made us sit up and think – has this been an organised response? Was this something that there was an organisation behind perhaps?”
BBC – “If the Eco-Town doesn’t get the go ahead then the pressure to build will return here, to Aldingbourne.”
Cllr. Bower – “It is my understanding that there is a developer looking at this particular field here but there are other development sites around Aldingbourne and the Westergate area.”
BBC – “ How likely is it that this would be developed?”
Cllr. Bower – “Well, I think there is a strong likelihood that it will be developed at some point in the future.”
Given that the LDF/Local Plan evidence base was in its very early stages what exactly did Councillor Bower mean when he said: “there is a strong likelihood that it will be developed at some point in the future” ?
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower had already decided that development at Aldingbourne was “ a strong likelihood ” before the LDF/Local Plan evidence base was anywhere near complete.
The context of the BBC’s programme was one of community against community. Councillor Bower chose to introduce the LDF consultation response into the programme for his own reasons.
In doing so, he questioned (on national television) the motives of an entire community whose only “crime” was to be aware of the issues facing the district and to care enough to actively participate in both the Structure Plan and LDF public consultations.
It is unclear whether Councillor Bower was speaking in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Planning or as one of the leaders of the council’s “ council-led community campaign ”. Perhaps he felt that the Aldingbourne public meeting and consultation response was in conflict with the aims of the council’s own “ council-led community campaign ”?
Councillor Bower’s comments were insulting to the community in Aldingbourne and to all other communities that play an active part in public consultations.
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower deliberately steered the debate away from one of new settlement versus urban/village extensions into one of community against community in order to undermine the results of the council’s consultation – a result that was in conflict with the aims of the council’s own “ council-led community campaign”.
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower’s comments were a deliberate attempt to turn the wider community against the people of Aldingbourne.
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower sought to create a climate in which local residents would be afraid to speak freely in favour of a new settlement for fear of public censure.
Councillor Bower subsequently provided a full written apology for his comments to both Aldingbourne Parish Council and Cllr. Mrs Briggs.
Cllr. Bower also resigned as Chairman of the LDF sub-committee because his impartiality was compromised – this was reported in the Bognor Observer on December 18th 2008. A spokeswoman for Arun District Council stated: “ The Local development framework is a complicated process and the council must remain impartial at all times. Cllr. Bower’s decision to stand down is appropriate given the circumstances.”
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower was swiftly reinstated as Chairman of the LDF sub-committee, as if nothing had happened, and continues in office as Cabinet Member for Planning – as a result the impartiality of the Council remains in question and his attack on the people of Aldingbourne remains a material consideration.
Bias in the dissemination of information.
In an e-mail on 22nd August 2008, from Derek Waller of the Campaign Against Ford Eco Town (CAFE) to Ian Sumnall, Chief Executive of Arun District Council, Mr Waller states: “ Dear Ian, Many thanks for, once again, hosting the CAFE meeting this morning”. The e-mail went on to thank Mr Sumnall for the blind copied e-mails from one of his officers!
This constitutes clear evidence that Arun District Council’s planning officers were blind copying e-mails/information to an action group opposed to LDF option 2.
The purpose of blind copying is to avoid others knowing. Such a practice, although not illegal, raises concerns about the ethics of the council.
Arun failed to disclose the information initially and it was only after an intervention by the Information Commissioner’s Office that Arun finally supplied the blind copied information. Following the ICO investigation the Information Commissioner found it necessary to remind Arun of its obligations and issued a strongly worded warning that “ if a pattern of delay were to emerge from separate complaints his approach would be likely to be a more formal one “.
The LDF/Local Plan must be open-minded, transparent, and fair to all sections of the community.
OBJECTION: Blind copying of information, by planning officers, to one section of the community creates a perception that the council is secretly favouring that section of the community, at the expense of other communities like Angmering, Eastergate/Westergate/Barnham, Wick and North Littlehampton.
OBJECTION: It is not responsible behaviour for a local authority Chief Executive to host action group meetings (especially when that action group is opposed to one of his own council’s LDF options). Nor should Arun’s councillors have permitted this.
CAFE met in the council chamber/committee room 1 on a regular basis (I suspect that they used the council chamber more often than the councillors!). The council has acknowledged that officers attended these meetings.
OBJECTION: This constitutes further evidence of bias on the part of the council in favour of residents from Ford, and that the council is therefore acting with an equal and opposite bias against residents in Angmering, Eastergate, Aldingbourne and Barnham.
Flawed public consultations.
Arun District Council’s approach to public consultation was called into question during the 2003 Local Plan – ultimately leading to a high court judgement against the council and a substantial bill for both the taxpayer and Bersted Parish Council.
There are flaws in the council’s public consultations for this Local Plan too, as follows:
a) Core Strategy Issues and Options.
When Arun District Council announced its Core Strategy Issues and Options public consultation it organised a series of public exhibitions – 5 days each in Littlehampton, Bognor and Arundel. The Five Villages area was excluded even though it was under consideration for large scale development and has a combined population far higher than Arundel.
OBJECTION: Despite protests from public and District Councillors Arun refused to hold an exhibition in the Five Villages. This led to a public meeting in Aldingbourne, a consultation response that was in conflict with the aims of the “ council-led community campaign” , and the subsequent council-led “branding” of the community at Aldingbourne.
b) Core Strategy Options for Growth – 12 th February 2009 to 2 nd April 2009.
The timing of the mobile exhibitions was set for the convenience of Arun District Council’s officers rather than the public. The exhibitions closed at 15.00 hours which meant that only retired or unemployed people were able to attend.
OBJECTION: Large numbers of working people were unable to visit the exhibitions (around 37% of the working population leave the district each day to work). The response to the consultation will have been distorted by the absence of working people.
The LDF Core Strategy Options for Growth consultation document describes LDF Option 2 as “ Option 2: An ‘eco town’ at Ford ” and question 7 asks “ which option do you consider most appropriate for Arun? & # 8221; and then goes on to list the options including “ Option 2: An Eco-town at Ford “.
By contrast, at the Special Cabinet meeting on 14 th April 2008 Cabinet voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation: “ the council, together with local organisations, mount a campaign against the principle of Eco-Towns in the District ”.
OBJECTION: Given that the council was actively campaigning against LDF option 2 the consultation must be seen as flawed.
It was common knowledge that Arun District Council was opposed to the Eco-Town proposals. The web site of the Villages Action Group recorded this in the following way: “The whole process of choosing between the 3 Options is deeply flawed because Arun DC are not acting impartially and have made it clear that they are absolutely opposed to the Eco Town at Ford, therefore leaving residents with only 2 choices when there should be 3.”
OBJECTION: In essence, the council created a situation where consultation respondents already believed that Option 2 was opposed by Arun District Council and so they were more likely to choose between Options 1 and 3, on the basis that a vote for Option 2 was a wasted vote. This was a badly flawed consultation.
c) Draft Local Plan consultation – 19 th July 2012 to 10 th September 2012.
This public consultation is deliberately timed to coincide with the summer holiday period.
Parish councils do not meet in August and so there is no official forum for the public to raise/discuss their concerns. Obviously many/most people will be on holiday during this period – that’s County Councillors, District Councillors, Parish Councillors, local residents, etc.
There is a huge amount of supporting information for the public to read and digest (I estimate somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 pages?). Can members of the public reasonably be expected to absorb and comment on so much information in a consultation period compressed by annual holidays?
OBJECTION: My concern is that the holiday period has been deliberately chosen to restrict the time available to members of the public and their democratically elected representatives and thereby to suppress public involvement in the consultation.
This paragraph is from the second version of the Draft Local Plan published 9 th July 2012:
13.1.12 “ With the 3838 units that would be required with the preferred housing target of 565 units per annum, it would be possible to adequately accommodate both broad strategic areas of growth in addition to the town and parish allocations.”
This is a significant paragraph because it is, as far as I can determine, the first time that the council has declared a preferred housing target of 565 units per annum.
This paragraph was not published in the first version of the Draft Local Plan (as published 6 th June 2012).
There is no mention of this paragraph in the minutes of Full Council of 20 th June, where the amendments to the first draft were agreed. At this meeting Councillor Haymes confirmed to members and public that it was just the housing numbers in the table that had changed and that the text remained the same. (Source: Full Council minutes 20 th June 2012).
On the assumption that Councillor Haymes was telling the truth then where did the above paragraph come from? It appears that this paragraph has been inserted after the Full Council of 20th June.
OBJECTION: My concern is that this clearly expressed preference, and therefore the consultation document itself, has not been approved by Full Council – making this consultation unsound. In essence, the councillors have lost control of the Local Plan.
In the Bognor Observer of 19 th July 2012 Councillor Bower, Cabinet Member for planning states;
“It will be gone by 2028. ” and “ The bottom line is that, as far as this council is concerned, the Woodgate crossing has to be bridged. How it’s to be bridged I’m happy and I believe the council is happy, to leave the decision to the residents of that area which is most likely to be effected by it. But the Woodgate crossing must go.”
There are many things that could and should have been considered before the council reached its “ bottom line ”.
Is there any point in traffic modeling when the council has already predetermined its “ bottom line ”?
Is there any point in members of the public participating in a public consultation when the council has already predetermined its “ bottom line ”?
OBJECTION: I believe that the Cabinet Member’s intention was to dissuade the public from participating in the public consultation by making it clear that any representations would not make any difference.
OBJECTION: Given that the council has already predetermined its “ bottom line ” before the response to the draft Local Plan consultation has even been considered, the consultation must be considered flawed.
OBJECTION: The Cabinet member is, once again, deliberately trying to set different sides of the community against each other.
Eco Town Select Committee membership.
The Eco Town Select Committee findings are highly relevant because the council seeks to use them as justification against a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford and instead as justification for the development of large swathes of greenfield land across the district.
According to the minutes of the Council Meeting of 7 th May 2008, Cabinet Members who had already voted to “ mount a campaign against the principle of Eco Towns in the District ” took part in the appointment of Arun’s Eco Town Select Committee members.
OBJECTION: The membership of the Eco Town Select Committee was directly influenced by cabinet members who had already voted to oppose the principle of an Eco Town – calling into question the impartiality of the Select Committee.
Councillor Dr Walsh made a number of statements at Arun District Council, and at West Sussex County Council in the meeting of 18 th April 2008 which were perceived by the public to imply his opposition to the Eco Town proposals, for instance;
“ this is less of eco-Ford and more of eco-fraud ” (West Sussex Gazette 23 rd April 2008, Bognor Observer 24 th April 2008).
and the blatant scaremongering of: “ There is disbelief that this can be funded from 5,000 houses and perhaps it may be a kite flying proposal for 15,000 to 20,000 ” Bognor Observer 24 th April 2008.
OBJECTION: Councillor Dr Walsh then went on to play a prominent part in the Eco Town Select Committee, as Vice Chairman, after he had, in effect, already made his opposition to the Eco Town proposals clear.
Delays to the LDF/Local Plan and consequences.
I am concerned that the LDF/Local Plan may have been deliberately delayed.
Delays in the LDF/Local Plan have enabled proposed developments in Courtwick Lane for 600 houses (LU/355/10/) and North Littlehampton for 1,260 houses (LU/47/11/) to bypass the Local Plan process. The draft Local Plan now counts these as existing permissions (even though one of them has not yet been approved).
As a result, residents in Littlehampton have, in essence, been excluded from the Local Plan process.
OBJECTION: I am concerned that some, or all, Conservative members of the council may have felt “encouraged” to delay the council’s LDF/Local Plan for party political reasons, by a letter from Caroline Spelman MP (then Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government) , and that as a consequence, developments in Courtwick Lane for 600 houses (LU/355/10/) and North Littlehampton for 1,260 houses (LU/47/11/) have, in essence, bypassed the Local Plan process, thereby excluding residents in Littlehampton from the Local Plan process.
In February 2009, Arun District Council took a full page in the brochure promoting the Greencore development proposals for North Littlehampton (which later became planning application (LU/47/11/).
This created a clear perception with the general public that the Greencore proposals were already part of the council’s wider masterplan. Councillor Norman Dingemans, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration stated in the brochure: “ These exciting developments all fit into an overall masterplan that ensures nothing happens in isolation .”
OBJECTION: There is no reason for a local authority to talk about its regeneration proposals in a developer’s brochure (especially whilst it is considering those same proposals through its LDF) other than to give endorsement by association. The Council was clearly endorsing the Greencore proposals. I am also concerned that the council’s advertisement was funded by the developers.
The new NPPF requires a duty to co-operate, stating; “ It is important for councils and other public bodies to work together across administrative boundaries to plan for the housing, transport and infrastructure that local people need. "
Chichester City Council’s planning and conservation committee (Bognor Observer, Sept 1 st 2011) suggested talks with Arun District Council to consider the possibility of a new settlement (possibly at Ford Airfield) to serve the housing needs of both districts.
On 2 nd September 2011 the council issued the following press release in response:
Resolve your own housing issues, Arun Cabinet Member tells Chichester.
Suggestions that land at Ford could be used to create a new town to ease housing pressures in Chichester have been categorically dismissed today by Arun’s Cabinet Member for Planning.
Councillor Ricky Bower has ruled out the possibility of the area near Arundel being used for development so Chichester can meet its housing targets.
His comments follow local media reports that a suggested recommendation was made by Chichester City Council’s Planning and Conservation Committee urging the Chichester District Council to work with Arun to create a brand new town of affordable and eco friendly homes.
Councillor Bower today dismissed the suggestion, saying: “These comments by the City Council are unhelpful.
“We understand that this debate was part of a wider consultation by the District Council on their core strategy. I am dismayed that the City Council would promote such ideas with no approach beforehand to the District Council.”
“We have significant issues around housing pressures ourselves and are committed to delivering more affordable homes through our Housing Strategy Raise the Roof.
“Chichester’s housing problems will remain solely with Chichester to resolve within its boundaries.
“I assure residents with absolute certainty Ford is not on the cards for development. "
Later this year Arun District Council will go out to public consultation with its Local Development Framework – a blueprint of where the Council proposes development over the coming years. Ford is not included as an option.
Every resident across Arun can and should have their say on this document when it is published.
OBJECTION: By dismissing Chichester City Council’s suggestion to co-operate so quickly, Arun District Council, once again, demonstrated an inability for open-minded consideration of planning proposals…. and that they are at odds with the objectives of the NPPF. The council is only paying lip service to the government’s requirement for a duty to co-operate.
Consultation submission by former District Councillor Tony Dixon.
CONSULTATION COMMENTS & OBJECTIONS to the Arun District Council draft Local Plan.
By Tony Dixon – former Arun District Councillor for Barnham Ward.
I am also a member of Ford Enterprise Hub (FEH), a community based planning initiative brought forward through the Joint Downland Area Committee and which became a submission to the national Eco Towns programme. See fordenterprisehub.
2 nd September 2012.
The case for a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford Airfield.
a) Use of brownfield land.
b) Advantages of a new settlement.
c) New link road from A259 to A27.
d) A27 Arundel bypass.
e) Transport hub.
g) Comparison of a new settlement and the draft Local Plan.
a) Council-led community campaign.
b) Breach of the law of natural justice.
c) Withholding a material consideration from the government.
d) Comments by the Cabinet Member for Planning.
e) Bias in the dissemination of information.
f) Flawed public consultations.
g) Eco Town Select Committee membership.
h) Delays to the LDF/Local Plan and consequences.
i) Duty to co-operate.
In February 2012, the council confirmed that there were 4,933 households on its housing waiting list, individuals and families unable to get a foot on the housing ladder, often trapped by hereditary deprivation and many of these households are in priority housing need.
OBJECTION: In paragraph 13.2.3 the draft Local Plan quotes a housing register figure of 1,800 and appears to be excluding residents in band D.
In the five years to 2009 Arun had the fastest growing Housing Needs Register in the entire South East Region.
According to Shelter, in Arun it takes 12 times the average wage (£17,888) to purchase the average priced house (£214,953). The lower the average wage the greater the need for affordable housing is likely to be and, not surprisingly, Arun has a deficit of affordable housing.
Ham, River, Pevensey, Marine and Hotham wards all suffer from serious deprivation – amongst the worst in the South East.
The council has persistently under delivered on housing provision, over many years – that is why it’s housing allocation was increased in the SE Plan. There is now a need to catch up. The wording is unclear but I think that the council is consulting on two options – 400 and 565 houses p. a.
SUPPORT: I support the need for 565 houses p. a.
This submission will make the case for a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford Airfield (possibly the largest available brownfield site in West Sussex).
It will also provide evidence that the council has breached the laws of natural justice in its attempts to avoid open minded consideration of a new settlement at Ford Airfield, on equal terms and alongside all other LDF/Local Plan options.
As a former District Councillor, I am aware that each member is individually responsible for his/her own conduct.
Through this submission I seek to make members aware of concerns relating to the conduct of the council and to provide them with an opportunity to address any perceived misconduct on the part of the council. It is for each individual member to decide what action, if any, to take.
(I recognise that some of the issues relating to the conduct of the council could have been reserved until the Examination in Public. However, if the Local Plan is found to be unsound at the EiP it will leave the district wide open to predatory planning applications and a further 18 months will have been lost. This would be disastrous for the district. I believe therefore that it is in the best interests of the district if members are given an opportunity to address these issues at an earlier stage.)
However, I must also acknowledge that some of the points relating to the conduct of the council have been brought to the attention of members before ……… and I am not aware that any member has done anything, other than to support the council’s conduct.
The case for a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford Airfield.
One of the 12 core planning principles of the new NPPF is that planning should “ encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;
Paragraph 13.1.14 of the draft Local Plan states: The development of land that has not previously been developed (greenfield) should only be considered where brownfield land cannot be developed.”
SUPPORT: I support the statement in paragraph 13.1.14.
OBJECTION: The council has deliberately avoided consideration of a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford Airfield (possibly the largest available brownfield site in West Sussex), on equal terms and alongside all other LDF/Local Plan options.
OBJECTION: The council seeks to use the findings of its Eco Town Select Committee as justification against development on brownfield land at Ford and instead to justify development of large swathes of greenfield land across the district. This submission will argue that the findings of the Eco Town Select committee are unsound.
Advantages of a new settlement.
New settlements offer many advantages over village extensions.
New settlements can be carefully planned from their inception – enabling planners to introduce current best practice techniques in addressing housing, open space, leisure, recreation, employment, energy, transport and environmental issues.
They help to protect the existing urban built environment by reducing the need for “town cramming” or “infill development”.
They offer an opportunity to build family homes rather than flats. Affordable housing deficits can be addressed in a substantial, rather than piecemeal manner.
A new settlement, utilising brownfield land, would reduce the pressure on greenfield locations elsewhere in the district. Every acre of brownfield land used is an acre of greenfield land saved!
The main objective with village extensions is to utilise and therefore increase pressure on existing infrastructure like health facilities, schools, roads, sewage etc. New settlements, on the other hand, provide their own infrastructure – placing much less burden on existing infrastructure, effectively spreading the pressure.
For instance, the existing sewage network across the district already struggles to cope. A new settlement at Ford would utilise the adjacent sewage works, placing no additional pressure on the existing network.
A new settlement on Flood Zone 1 land at Ford would reduce the risk of flooding in areas like Felpham (which is downstream from the council’s proposed strategic allocation at Eastergate/Aldingbourne/Barnham) – with easy drainage to the River Arun.
Onsite energy production becomes more viable with larger settlements. Combined heat and power becomes possible – improving energy efficiency and sustainability.
Road layouts in a new settlement do not evolve over years – they are carefully planned from the outset. A link road between the A259 and A27 (bridging the railway at Ford) becomes possible.
The new NPPF makes it clear that local planning authorities should take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas. A new settlement at Ford could generate a substantial contribution towards an A27 Arundel bypass.
A single new settlement can offer infrastructure contributions on a far greater scale than a number of smaller developments peppered across the district. For instance, the promoters for Ford Eco Town calculated their total planning obligation as £200 million.
OBJECTION: The council is settling for a much lower level of planning obligation than might be realised through a new settlement.
We should ask – if the urban/village extensions of the last 60 years have been so successful that we would want to repeat them – then why is the local economy in Arun in such a poor condition?
New link road from A259 to A27.
To attract inward investment the council must first recognise that businesses need easy access to the Strategic Road Network (SRN) which, for Arun, means the east/west bound A27 and the north/south routes of the A3 and M3 in the west and the A24 and A23 in the east – all of which are largely dual carriageway and can support commercial traffic.
For instance, a new link road from the A259 at Comet Corner, bridging the railway line at Ford, to the proposed Arundel Bypass (pink/blue route) would provide Bognor Regis with improved access to/from the A27 and the SRN in the east.
By providing a new and additional route to/from Bognor Regis traffic would be dispersed over three routes to/from the A27 rather than two – effectively spreading new and existing traffic and thereby reducing congestion on existing roads. By contrast, proposals to focus large-scale development around the A29 would simply add pressure to the existing infrastructure.
A “diamond” shaped “ring road” would effectively be formed around the Five Villages by the A27, the A259, and the new link road, channelling traffic to/from Bognor north-eastwards and north-westwards to the A27 and onwards to use the designated SRN north/south routes of the A3 and the A24.
A “ring road” would preserve and protect the rural designation of the Five Villages.
OBJECTION: The council has not properly considered the possibility of linking Bognor Regis to the Strategic Road Network in the east.
A new settlement at Ford is seen as capable of much more than meeting housing need alone but crucial to the delivery of local, regional and national policies which seek the realisation of economic potential in the Sussex Coastal Sub-Region and turning around areas of deprivation in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
Attracting inward investment in better paid jobs calls for major improvements on the SRN and in access to it from those towns and also for business in a new settlement.
Key objectives of an Arundel bypass are:
Removal of the cause of severance to the town of Arundel. Removal of the source of noise and air pollution for those living close to the present line of the road. Improvement in safety and traffic flow on the trunk road. Completion of the strategic road network to create conditions in which the economic potential of the District can be fully realised and major investment can be attracted. Freedom for the local authorities to plan for sustainable transport and sustainable growth in Arun. A district-wide carbon saving achieved through a significant reduction in journey times. Deter rat-running through the South Downs National Park to the north and through villages to the south to avoid congestion on the A27. Freedom for the local authorities to make improvements to the local network through:
a) A ban on HGVs in Ford Road, Arundel and control over HGV movements on Church Lane, Climping and on B2132 and B2233.
b) Greater safety and easier traffic flow on A259 and A284.
c) Safe provision for pedestrians and cyclists on the present line of the A27 between Crossbush, the station, Town, Hospital and Havenwood Park.
Over the last decade Arun District Council has declined to link its housing requirements with improvements to the A27 at Arundel. This policy is now in conflict with the objectives of the new NPPF.
Paragraph 162 of the new NPPF states that: Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:
assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; and take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas.
In the strict environmental context of the Eco Town process a contribution towards a bypass would not have been appropriate. However, bypasses are acceptable in other types new of settlement.
OBJECTION: The council has not properly explored the possibility that a new settlement at Ford Airfield could generate substantial planning obligation (or Community Infrastructure Levy) towards an Arundel bypass.
Development at Ford will provide the catalyst for improvements to the transport infrastructure and will create a new public transport hub for the district – facilitating a modal shift towards public transport.
Ford is ideally situated. Ford Railway Station sits astride the South Coast Main Line and is at the foot of the Arun Valley line. The South Coast Main Line gives access to Worthing, Brighton and beyond to the east, and Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth and beyond to the west. The Arun Valley Line gives access to Gatwick, Horsham, East Croydon and London.
In spite of its quite unique strategic location Ford Railway Station has only 11 public parking spaces (with a further 2 for staff) and may well be the most underutilised London main line station in the country! Ford Station is an asset which could contribute significantly towards transport sustainability in the district.
With the combination of a link road from the A27 to A259, bridging the railway at Ford and removing the level crossing, and adopting the Parkway approach with ample parking to serve not just a new development but the whole district, a new Ford railway station relocated approximately 400 yards to the west would become the focal point of a multi modal transport hub serving the whole district and acting as the main point of access for rail services to the north, east and west.
Ford Railway Station is geographically equidistant between Bognor, Littlehampton, the Five Villages and Arundel and is ideally placed to relieve pressure on all existing Arun District stations – which suffer from inadequate parking and, in the case of Bognor and Littlehampton, the service limitations associated with being “end of line” stations.
In the case of Barnham, commuters take up most of the on-street parking and there is little parking left for customers using the local facilities. This has a detrimental effect on local traders. There is no room for expansion at Barnham.
Currently many bus services are poor or non-existent because they are considered unviable. Regular and enhanced bus services between Bognor and Littlehampton, via Ford Parkway and the industrial/commercial or residential area at Ford will then become viable, making travel easy and convenient for local journeys to/from work and also for longer distance commuting in/out of the district, contributing even further towards transport sustainability.
New residents at Ford would be ideally located to use the Coastal Expressway service.
OBJECTION: The draft Local Plan is car based and has failed to properly explore opportunities for alternative, more sustainable, modes of transport like rail and bus.
Arun’s main industries are traditionally horticulture/agriculture, tourism and retail. In essence the District is a low-paid and largely seasonal economy compared with other parts of West Sussex.
According to Nomis the average gross weekly wage for those working in Arun in 2010 was £399 – the lowest of the seven councils in West Sussex. This compares to a West Sussex average of £479 (20 per cent higher) and a South East average of £523 (31 per cent higher). The national average is £500 (25 per cent higher).
Low wage levels create an unacceptably high level of outbound commuting. Currently around 37 per cent of the working population leave the district each day to work.
Arun ranks 63rd out of 67 local authorities in South East England when it comes to the ratio of jobs to population aged 16-64.
The 2003 Local Plan has failed to attract employment interest for the Oldlands Farm site. In spite of this, the council remains committed to planning its employment provision in this area.
Proposals for Airfield Park seem fanciful and the council does not appear to have a strategy to attract employers to Airfield Park. It seems that the council’s continuing interest in this location may have more to do with a desire to salvage the failed 2003 Local Plan rather than to consider any alternative options. A vanity project!
In a choice between Tangmere and Airfield Park employers will choose the one that is nearest to the A27. A local company Respironics (now owned by Philips) moved from Bersted to Tangmere to be closer to the A27. The council appears to have learned no lessons from this.
OBJECTION: The council has provided little credible evidence to support the viability of its employment proposals for Airfield Park.
Comparison of a new settlement and the draft Local Plan.
It is interesting to compare the differences in proposed infrastructure provision for the district between any new settlement (by using the former Eco Town proposals as a benchmark) and Arun’s draft Local Plan.
It’s not an easy comparison to make because the draft Local Plan is so vague in many places, and the Eco Town process had strict environmental “rules”, but here’s an attempt:
I have excluded the development proposals in Wick and North Littlehampton which, because of the delays in Arun’s LDF/Local Plan, have been able to bypass the Local Plan process. More on that later in this submission!
OBJECTION: The council has failed to properly explore how it can maximise planning obligation for the district.
The council has breached the laws of natural justice in its attempts to avoid open minded consideration of a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford Airfield (possibly the largest available brownfield site in West Sussex), on equal terms and alongside all other LDF/Local Plan options.
This calls into question the soundness of the Local Plan.
Council-led community campaign.
The council appears to be unique in that it is the only council in the country to have actually led a campaign against one of its own LDF options – the Eco Town (new settlement) proposals (LDF Option 2).
On 3rd April 2008, the council issued a press release announcing “ an emergency meeting of the Council’s Cabinet has been called for Monday 14th April to kick-start a community campaign against the proposal ” and “ the Leader of Arun District Council, Cllr Mrs Gillian Brown, signalling the start of a council-led community campaign against the proposal said she was appalled that no account had been taken of the Council’s consistent and overwhelming objections to an eco-town at Ford.”
It is clear from this statement that not only had the council already decided against an Eco Town at Ford but that its intention was to start a campaign against those proposals.
At the special cabinet meeting those cabinet members present voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation: “ the council, together with local organisations, mount a campaign against the principle of Eco-Towns in the District ”.
The existence of the “ council-led community campaign ” throughout the early LDF/Local Plan process calls into question the soundness of the LDF/Local Plan for the following reasons:
OBJECTION: Given that the cabinet voted to “ mount a campaign against the principle of Eco-Towns in the District ” those cabinet members, in effect, predetermined their position with regard to consideration of LDF option 2.
OBJECTION: By leading a campaign against one of its own LDF options the council favoured residents in one section of the community at the expense of residents in other locations like Angmering, Eastergate/Westergate/Barnham, Wick and North Littlehampton.
OBJECTION: An Eco Town is one type of new settlement which sets a very high bar for environmental considerations. The council has used the findings of its Eco Town Select Committee as a means of avoiding consideration of any other types of new settlement.
Breach of the laws of natural justice.
The laws of natural justice have underpinned the English legal system since Roman times. They protect against arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fair play.
The principles of natural justice form two basic legal safeguards that govern all decisions by judges or government officials when they take quasi-judicial or judicial decisions. One is nemo judex in parte sua (no person may judge their own case) and the other is audi alteram partem (the right to be heard).
(1) Audi alteram partem (Latin for, hear the other side): no accused, or a person directly affected by a decision, shall be condemned unless given full chance to prepare and submit his or her case and rebuttal to the opposing party’s arguments.
(2) Nemo judex in causa sua (Latin for, no man a judge in his own case): no decision is valid if it was influenced by any financial consideration or other interest or bias of the decision maker.
These principles apply to decisions of all governmental agencies and tribunals, and judgments of all courts, which may be declared to be of having no effect (ultra vires) if found in contravention of natural justice.
OBJECTION: A council cannot campaign against something (the “ council-led community campaign ” against the principle of an Eco Town) and at the same time consider it with an open mind (the Eco Town Select Committee) – Nemo judex in causa sua. Bias of the decision maker! The council has breached the laws of natural justice.
Res ipsa loquitor!
OBJECTION: The findings of the Eco Town Select Committee are unsound.
Withholding a material consideration from the government.
When the findings of the Eco Town Select Committee were submitted to the government the council did not make the government aware that it was also leading a campaign against the principle of an Eco Town in the district.
OBJECTION: The council deliberately withheld a material consideration from the government.
Comments by the Cabinet Member for Planning.
When Arun District Council announced its Core Strategy Issues and Options public consultation in the autumn of 2005 it organised a series of public exhibitions – 5 days each in Littlehampton, Bognor and Arundel. The Five Villages area was excluded (so was Angmering) even though it has a combined population far higher than Arundel and it was also an area under consideration for large-scale development, whereas Arundel was not.
Despite protests from the public and District Councillors Arun refused to hold an exhibition in the Five Villages.
Residents in Aldingbourne were already aware of, and sensitive to, development proposals made at the time of the Structure Plan and were concerned at the Council’s refusal to provide an LDF exhibition in the Five Villages. They requested a public meeting.
At the public meeting residents were briefed on the newly introduced LDF procedure, the nature of the first public consultation and were each given a copy of the consultation questionnaire. These were completed by residents in the privacy of their own homes. They formed a large part of the consultation response.
There would have been no need for a public meeting if the Council had carried out its consultation properly and included an exhibition in the Five Villages.
Then, on 24th September 2008, Councillor Bower, Cabinet Member for Planning and one of the leaders of the “ council-led community campaign ” against the principle of an Eco Town stated on the BBC’s Inside Out programme that;
Cllr. Bower – “ 50% of the responses came from one parish namely Aldingbourne and of those responses something like 91% of those who responded from Aldingbourne all said that Ford should be in the top three of their choices. It made us sit up and think – has this been an organised response? Was this something that there was an organisation behind perhaps?”
BBC – “If the Eco-Town doesn’t get the go ahead then the pressure to build will return here, to Aldingbourne.”
Cllr. Bower – “It is my understanding that there is a developer looking at this particular field here but there are other development sites around Aldingbourne and the Westergate area.”
BBC – “ How likely is it that this would be developed?”
Cllr. Bower – “Well, I think there is a strong likelihood that it will be developed at some point in the future.”
Given that the LDF/Local Plan evidence base was in its very early stages what exactly did Councillor Bower mean when he said: “there is a strong likelihood that it will be developed at some point in the future” ?
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower had already decided that development at Aldingbourne was “ a strong likelihood ” before the LDF/Local Plan evidence base was anywhere near complete.
The context of the BBC’s programme was one of community against community. Councillor Bower chose to introduce the LDF consultation response into the programme for his own reasons.
In doing so, he questioned (on national television) the motives of an entire community whose only “crime” was to be aware of the issues facing the district and to care enough to actively participate in both the Structure Plan and LDF public consultations.
It is unclear whether Councillor Bower was speaking in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Planning or as one of the leaders of the council’s “ council-led community campaign ”. Perhaps he felt that the Aldingbourne public meeting and consultation response was in conflict with the aims of the council’s own “ council-led community campaign ”?
Councillor Bower’s comments were insulting to the community in Aldingbourne and to all other communities that play an active part in public consultations.
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower deliberately steered the debate away from one of new settlement versus urban/village extensions into one of community against community in order to undermine the results of the council’s consultation – a result that was in conflict with the aims of the council’s own “ council-led community campaign”.
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower’s comments were a deliberate attempt to turn the wider community against the people of Aldingbourne.
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower sought to create a climate in which local residents would be afraid to speak freely in favour of a new settlement for fear of public censure.
Councillor Bower subsequently provided a full written apology for his comments to both Aldingbourne Parish Council and Cllr. Mrs Briggs.
Cllr. Bower also resigned as Chairman of the LDF sub-committee because his impartiality was compromised – this was reported in the Bognor Observer on December 18th 2008. A spokeswoman for Arun District Council stated: “ The Local development framework is a complicated process and the council must remain impartial at all times. Cllr. Bower’s decision to stand down is appropriate given the circumstances.”
OBJECTION: Councillor Bower was swiftly reinstated as Chairman of the LDF sub-committee, as if nothing had happened, and continues in office as Cabinet Member for Planning – as a result the impartiality of the Council remains in question and his attack on the people of Aldingbourne remains a material consideration.
Bias in the dissemination of information.
In an e-mail on 22nd August 2008, from Derek Waller of the Campaign Against Ford Eco Town (CAFE) to Ian Sumnall, Chief Executive of Arun District Council, Mr Waller states: “ Dear Ian, Many thanks for, once again, hosting the CAFE meeting this morning”. The e-mail went on to thank Mr Sumnall for the blind copied e-mails from one of his officers!
This constitutes clear evidence that Arun District Council’s planning officers were blind copying e-mails/information to an action group opposed to LDF option 2.
The purpose of blind copying is to avoid others knowing. Such a practice, although not illegal, raises concerns about the ethics of the council.
Arun failed to disclose the information initially and it was only after an intervention by the Information Commissioner’s Office that Arun finally supplied the blind copied information. Following the ICO investigation the Information Commissioner found it necessary to remind Arun of its obligations and issued a strongly worded warning that “ if a pattern of delay were to emerge from separate complaints his approach would be likely to be a more formal one “.
The LDF/Local Plan must be open-minded, transparent, and fair to all sections of the community.
OBJECTION: Blind copying of information, by planning officers, to one section of the community creates a perception that the council is secretly favouring that section of the community, at the expense of other communities like Angmering, Eastergate/Westergate/Barnham, Wick and North Littlehampton.
OBJECTION: It is not responsible behaviour for a local authority Chief Executive to host action group meetings (especially when that action group is opposed to one of his own council’s LDF options). Nor should Arun’s councillors have permitted this.
CAFE met in the council chamber/committee room 1 on a regular basis (I suspect that they used the council chamber more often than the councillors!). The council has acknowledged that officers attended these meetings.
OBJECTION: This constitutes further evidence of bias on the part of the council in favour of residents from Ford, and that the council is therefore acting with an equal and opposite bias against residents in Angmering, Eastergate, Aldingbourne and Barnham.
Flawed public consultations.
Arun District Council’s approach to public consultation was called into question during the 2003 Local Plan – ultimately leading to a high court judgement against the council and a substantial bill for both the taxpayer and Bersted Parish Council.
There are flaws in the council’s public consultations for this Local Plan too, as follows:
a) Core Strategy Issues and Options.
When Arun District Council announced its Core Strategy Issues and Options public consultation it organised a series of public exhibitions – 5 days each in Littlehampton, Bognor and Arundel. The Five Villages area was excluded even though it was under consideration for large scale development and has a combined population far higher than Arundel.
OBJECTION: Despite protests from public and District Councillors Arun refused to hold an exhibition in the Five Villages. This led to a public meeting in Aldingbourne, a consultation response that was in conflict with the aims of the “ council-led community campaign” , and the subsequent council-led “branding” of the community at Aldingbourne.
b) Core Strategy Options for Growth – 12 th February 2009 to 2 nd April 2009.
The timing of the mobile exhibitions was set for the convenience of Arun District Council’s officers rather than the public. The exhibitions closed at 15.00 hours which meant that only retired or unemployed people were able to attend.
OBJECTION: Large numbers of working people were unable to visit the exhibitions (around 37% of the working population leave the district each day to work). The response to the consultation will have been distorted by the absence of working people.
The LDF Core Strategy Options for Growth consultation document describes LDF Option 2 as “ Option 2: An ‘eco town’ at Ford ” and question 7 asks “ which option do you consider most appropriate for Arun? & # 8221; and then goes on to list the options including “ Option 2: An Eco-town at Ford “.
By contrast, at the Special Cabinet meeting on 14 th April 2008 Cabinet voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation: “ the council, together with local organisations, mount a campaign against the principle of Eco-Towns in the District ”.
OBJECTION: Given that the council was actively campaigning against LDF option 2 the consultation must be seen as flawed.
It was common knowledge that Arun District Council was opposed to the Eco-Town proposals. The web site of the Villages Action Group recorded this in the following way: “The whole process of choosing between the 3 Options is deeply flawed because Arun DC are not acting impartially and have made it clear that they are absolutely opposed to the Eco Town at Ford, therefore leaving residents with only 2 choices when there should be 3.”
OBJECTION: In essence, the council created a situation where consultation respondents already believed that Option 2 was opposed by Arun District Council and so they were more likely to choose between Options 1 and 3, on the basis that a vote for Option 2 was a wasted vote. This was a badly flawed consultation.
c) Draft Local Plan consultation – 19 th July 2012 to 10 th September 2012.
This public consultation is deliberately timed to coincide with the summer holiday period.
Parish councils do not meet in August and so there is no official forum for the public to raise/discuss their concerns. Obviously many/most people will be on holiday during this period – that’s County Councillors, District Councillors, Parish Councillors, local residents, etc.
There is a huge amount of supporting information for the public to read and digest (I estimate somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 pages?). Can members of the public reasonably be expected to absorb and comment on so much information in a consultation period compressed by annual holidays?
OBJECTION: My concern is that the holiday period has been deliberately chosen to restrict the time available to members of the public and their democratically elected representatives and thereby to suppress public involvement in the consultation.
This paragraph is from the second version of the Draft Local Plan published 9 th July 2012:
13.1.12 “ With the 3838 units that would be required with the preferred housing target of 565 units per annum, it would be possible to adequately accommodate both broad strategic areas of growth in addition to the town and parish allocations.”
This is a significant paragraph because it is, as far as I can determine, the first time that the council has declared a preferred housing target of 565 units per annum.
This paragraph was not published in the first version of the Draft Local Plan (as published 6 th June 2012).
There is no mention of this paragraph in the minutes of Full Council of 20 th June, where the amendments to the first draft were agreed. At this meeting Councillor Haymes confirmed to members and public that it was just the housing numbers in the table that had changed and that the text remained the same. (Source: Full Council minutes 20 th June 2012).
On the assumption that Councillor Haymes was telling the truth then where did the above paragraph come from? It appears that this paragraph has been inserted after the Full Council of 20th June.
OBJECTION: My concern is that this clearly expressed preference, and therefore the consultation document itself, has not been approved by Full Council – making this consultation unsound. In essence, the councillors have lost control of the Local Plan.
In the Bognor Observer of 19 th July 2012 Councillor Bower, Cabinet Member for planning states;
“It will be gone by 2028. ” and “ The bottom line is that, as far as this council is concerned, the Woodgate crossing has to be bridged. How it’s to be bridged I’m happy and I believe the council is happy, to leave the decision to the residents of that area which is most likely to be effected by it. But the Woodgate crossing must go.”
There are many things that could and should have been considered before the council reached its “ bottom line ”.
Is there any point in traffic modeling when the council has already predetermined its “ bottom line ”?
Is there any point in members of the public participating in a public consultation when the council has already predetermined its “ bottom line ”?
OBJECTION: I believe that the Cabinet Member’s intention was to dissuade the public from participating in the public consultation by making it clear that any representations would not make any difference.
OBJECTION: Given that the council has already predetermined its “ bottom line ” before the response to the draft Local Plan consultation has even been considered, the consultation must be considered flawed.
OBJECTION: The Cabinet member is, once again, deliberately trying to set different sides of the community against each other.
Eco Town Select Committee membership.
The Eco Town Select Committee findings are highly relevant because the council seeks to use them as justification against a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford and instead as justification for the development of large swathes of greenfield land across the district.
According to the minutes of the Council Meeting of 7 th May 2008, Cabinet Members who had already voted to “ mount a campaign against the principle of Eco Towns in the District ” took part in the appointment of Arun’s Eco Town Select Committee members.
OBJECTION: The membership of the Eco Town Select Committee was directly influenced by cabinet members who had already voted to oppose the principle of an Eco Town – calling into question the impartiality of the Select Committee.
Councillor Dr Walsh made a number of statements at Arun District Council, and at West Sussex County Council in the meeting of 18 th April 2008 which were perceived by the public to imply his opposition to the Eco Town proposals, for instance;
“ this is less of eco-Ford and more of eco-fraud ” (West Sussex Gazette 23 rd April 2008, Bognor Observer 24 th April 2008).
and the blatant scaremongering of: “ There is disbelief that this can be funded from 5,000 houses and perhaps it may be a kite flying proposal for 15,000 to 20,000 ” Bognor Observer 24 th April 2008.
OBJECTION: Councillor Dr Walsh then went on to play a prominent part in the Eco Town Select Committee, as Vice Chairman, after he had, in effect, already made his opposition to the Eco Town proposals clear.
Delays to the LDF/Local Plan and consequences.
I am concerned that the LDF/Local Plan may have been deliberately delayed.
Delays in the LDF/Local Plan have enabled proposed developments in Courtwick Lane for 600 houses (LU/355/10/) and North Littlehampton for 1,260 houses (LU/47/11/) to bypass the Local Plan process. The draft Local Plan now counts these as existing permissions (even though one of them has not yet been approved).
As a result, residents in Littlehampton have, in essence, been excluded from the Local Plan process.
OBJECTION: I am concerned that some, or all, Conservative members of the council may have felt “encouraged” to delay the council’s LDF/Local Plan for party political reasons, by a letter from Caroline Spelman MP (then Shadow Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government) , and that as a consequence, developments in Courtwick Lane for 600 houses (LU/355/10/) and North Littlehampton for 1,260 houses (LU/47/11/) have, in essence, bypassed the Local Plan process, thereby excluding residents in Littlehampton from the Local Plan process.
In February 2009, Arun District Council took a full page in the brochure promoting the Greencore development proposals for North Littlehampton (which later became planning application (LU/47/11/).
This created a clear perception with the general public that the Greencore proposals were already part of the council’s wider masterplan. Councillor Norman Dingemans, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration stated in the brochure: “ These exciting developments all fit into an overall masterplan that ensures nothing happens in isolation .”
OBJECTION: There is no reason for a local authority to talk about its regeneration proposals in a developer’s brochure (especially whilst it is considering those same proposals through its LDF) other than to give endorsement by association. The Council was clearly endorsing the Greencore proposals. I am also concerned that the council’s advertisement was funded by the developers.
The new NPPF requires a duty to co-operate, stating; “ It is important for councils and other public bodies to work together across administrative boundaries to plan for the housing, transport and infrastructure that local people need. "
Chichester City Council’s planning and conservation committee (Bognor Observer, Sept 1 st 2011) suggested talks with Arun District Council to consider the possibility of a new settlement (possibly at Ford Airfield) to serve the housing needs of both districts.
On 2 nd September 2011 the council issued the following press release in response:
Resolve your own housing issues, Arun Cabinet Member tells Chichester.
Suggestions that land at Ford could be used to create a new town to ease housing pressures in Chichester have been categorically dismissed today by Arun’s Cabinet Member for Planning.
Councillor Ricky Bower has ruled out the possibility of the area near Arundel being used for development so Chichester can meet its housing targets.
His comments follow local media reports that a suggested recommendation was made by Chichester City Council’s Planning and Conservation Committee urging the Chichester District Council to work with Arun to create a brand new town of affordable and eco friendly homes.
Councillor Bower today dismissed the suggestion, saying: “These comments by the City Council are unhelpful.
“We understand that this debate was part of a wider consultation by the District Council on their core strategy. I am dismayed that the City Council would promote such ideas with no approach beforehand to the District Council.”
“We have significant issues around housing pressures ourselves and are committed to delivering more affordable homes through our Housing Strategy Raise the Roof.
“Chichester’s housing problems will remain solely with Chichester to resolve within its boundaries.
“I assure residents with absolute certainty Ford is not on the cards for development. "
Later this year Arun District Council will go out to public consultation with its Local Development Framework – a blueprint of where the Council proposes development over the coming years. Ford is not included as an option.
Every resident across Arun can and should have their say on this document when it is published.
OBJECTION: By dismissing Chichester City Council’s suggestion to co-operate so quickly, Arun District Council, once again, demonstrated an inability for open-minded consideration of planning proposals…. and that they are at odds with the objectives of the NPPF. The council is only paying lip service to the government’s requirement for a duty to co-operate.
More on natural justice ………
The laws of natural justice have underpinned the English legal system since Roman times. They protect against arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fair play.
The principles of natural justice form two basic legal safeguards that govern all decisions by judges or government officials when they take quasi-judicial or judicial decisions. One is nemo judex in parte sua (no person may judge their own case) and the other is audi alteram partem (the right to be heard).
(1) Audi alteram partem (Latin for, hear the other side): no accused or a person directly affected by a decision, shall be condemned unless given full chance to prepare and submit his or her case and rebuttal to the opposing party’s arguments.
(2) Nemo judex in causa sua (Latin for, no man a judge in his own case): no decision is valid if it was influenced by any financial consideration or other interest or bias of the decision maker.
These principles apply to decisions of all governmental agencies and tribunals, and judgments of all courts, which may be declared to be of having no effect (ultra vires) if found in contravention of natural justice.
A council cannot campaign against something (the “council-led community campaign” against the principle of an Eco Town) and at the same time consider it with an open mind (the Eco Town Select Committee) – Nemo judex in causa sua. Bias of the decision maker!
Arun now seeks to use the findings of the Eco Town Select Committee as its justification against a new settlement on brownfield land and instead to justify development of large swathes of greenfield land across the district.
I hope that the residents most affected by this – in Angmering, Eastergate, Aldingbourne and Barnham, and their democratically elected representatives, will include this point in their response to the current public consultation – in order to receive an independent opinion from the Planning Inspectorate when it is considered in a quasi judicial context.
Breach of the law of natural justice?
The council led a campaign against the principle of an Eco Town (LDF option 2) in the district and at the same time held a Select Committee to consider the Eco Town proposals.
I am no expert on the planning process but it seems to me that a council cannot lead a campaign against something and also consider it with an open mind.
It is contrary to the law of natural justice. ( nemo iudex in causa sua – no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause).
Does this apparent breach of the law of natural justice call into question the soundness of the Eco Town Select Committee findings? (and is the council using the Eco Town Select Committee findings as justification for not considering all other types of new settlement?)
When the findings of the Eco Town Select Committee were submitted to the government did the council take any steps to make the government aware that it was also leading a campaign against the principle of an eco town in the district? Would failure to advise the government constitute deception?
Perhaps residents in Angmering and Eastergate/Westergate/Barnham should include this legal point in any objections in order to seek an independent and quasi judicial opinion from the Planning Inspectorate?