The Planning Choice facing Sutton!!
Councillors have been invited to a seminar on the developing Core Planning Strategy of the Council.
This is important as the Council will face choices as to the quantity of development it wants to accept in the coming years. For example if we are still keen on Tramlink, we will send the message that we want more intense development in some areas.
The document going to the Strategic Planning SCAG hopes consensus can be achieved.
I am not convinced that will happen as this issue was a key subtext of the local elections.
Global and techological changes are having a rapid impact on suburbs like us. In addition the only likely way to improve suburban infrastructure is through private-sector led initiatives (Ken's view and not just mine). For example the "new sports centre in the west of the borough", we were going to build seems less and less likely as the private sector seems to be filling the niche (5 a side football in North Cheam, sports facilities as Nonsuch etc).
All this pressure will inevitably lead to existing residents seeking to secure the £60,000 premium on their properties for more intense development. Other residents will not be happy with these changes and this will create an inevitable dividing line, which parties will take sides on.
You can now tell why Tories nationally are getting less keen on big business and the markets nowadays and moving on to wellbeing and quality of life issues in a rapidly changing world.
However I do suspect some pragmatism as local Councillors themselves are probably in the same position as residents who want to benefit from intensification of their capital through exploiting the current land scarcity in the suburbs.
Instead of the simply saying we are just managing this process, the Council should directly communicate with all residents and pose them the honest question, do they want to make more money from their homes or do they want to resist this?
Perhaps as well as a "planet pledge", the Council might want to ask whether residents will sign up to a "low development pledge".
Somehow, I don't expect many takers for all the talk of protecting the local enviroment!
This is important as the Council will face choices as to the quantity of development it wants to accept in the coming years. For example if we are still keen on Tramlink, we will send the message that we want more intense development in some areas.
The document going to the Strategic Planning SCAG hopes consensus can be achieved.
I am not convinced that will happen as this issue was a key subtext of the local elections.
Global and techological changes are having a rapid impact on suburbs like us. In addition the only likely way to improve suburban infrastructure is through private-sector led initiatives (Ken's view and not just mine). For example the "new sports centre in the west of the borough", we were going to build seems less and less likely as the private sector seems to be filling the niche (5 a side football in North Cheam, sports facilities as Nonsuch etc).
All this pressure will inevitably lead to existing residents seeking to secure the £60,000 premium on their properties for more intense development. Other residents will not be happy with these changes and this will create an inevitable dividing line, which parties will take sides on.
You can now tell why Tories nationally are getting less keen on big business and the markets nowadays and moving on to wellbeing and quality of life issues in a rapidly changing world.
However I do suspect some pragmatism as local Councillors themselves are probably in the same position as residents who want to benefit from intensification of their capital through exploiting the current land scarcity in the suburbs.
Instead of the simply saying we are just managing this process, the Council should directly communicate with all residents and pose them the honest question, do they want to make more money from their homes or do they want to resist this?
Perhaps as well as a "planet pledge", the Council might want to ask whether residents will sign up to a "low development pledge".
Somehow, I don't expect many takers for all the talk of protecting the local enviroment!
posted by Charlie Mansell at 2:14 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home