The Local Plan is not going to be changed as a result Of the Consultation, February 2016

User Rating:  / 1

Parent Category: Planning and Development

Category: BDBC Local Plan

Created on Monday, 21 March 2016 11:14

Last Updated on Friday, 08 November 2019 11:51

Published on Monday, 21 March 2016 11:14

Written by Deputy Chair

Hits: 17487

“AT LEAST” remains

The recommendation of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council is that the wording “AT LEAST” remains in policy SS5 which is the policy associated with Neighbourhood Planning allocation of housing developments.

The response to the Consultation was high from the residents of Bramley. To the consultation on the whole plan there were 384 comments with 209 comments on modification 141 which refers to the change in the wording to “at least” in policy SS5, Neighbourhood Planning. There were 198 objections made to this change.

To the proposed modification 141, which refers to the change in the wording to “at least”, there were 183 objections from the community of Bramley alone pointing out that:-

“The  change reference PM141 on policy SS5 which refers to changing 'approximately' to 'at least' is  not restrictive and allows developers more allowance and believes wording should remain as 'approximate “

That is 183 objections from Bramley from a total of 198 against this change, 92%. Bramley Parish Council objected as did Overton and Oakley Parish Councils who are also allocated housing developments in Policy SS5.

For a large number of replies there was text explaining that changing the wording would make it difficult for Neighbourhood planning because “at Least” meant “AD INFINITUM” as regards housing development, that in the case of Bramley the change in the wording from “200 approximately” to “200 at Least” would give developers an argument to have an open door to development, that Bramley has not the infrastructure to cope with such expansion, that Bramley has had extraordinary growth over recent years etc.

The response from Jill Fisher, Policy Manager (Planning and Infrastructure) to Mr Mike Fox HA (Hons) DipTR MRTPI, the Inspector for the local plan,as regards the change can be seen at

http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/rte.aspx?id=1215.

• PS/06 Documents relating to Public Consultation on Proposed Modifications Dec 2015 - Feb 2016 and beyond

The paragraph in the letter ref Policy SS5 (Neighbourhood Planning) stated:-

“Approximately 65% of representations on the proposed main modifications related to policy SS5 (Neighbourhood Planning) with a particularly high level of interest from residents in Bramley parish. Comments primarily related to the change of wording from ‘approximately’ to ‘at least’ for the levels of development identified for the 5 named settlements in the policy.
The proposed modifications reflect discussions held during the examination and the views of the Inspector. As outlined in council document MF15, the change to ‘at least’ has been made to promote flexibility and ensure that the neighbourhood planning figures are not considered as a ceiling for development. The use of 'at least' is common practice in Local Plans and should not equate to an unlimited amount of further development.
Consequently, whilst the council is sympathetic to the concern that ‘at least’ does not represent clear guidance on housing numbers, it considers that the proposed wording is a suitable response to the need for flexibility.”

The list of the 183 responses from Bramley Residents can be seen under

PS/06/09 - Summary Schedule of Representations and Council Responses to Issues Raised (PDF, 579 kb)

on the page referenced above. There you will see the response to all the Objections is:-

“Noted and no change proposed. The council has sympathy with this argument and the change reflects discussions held during the examination and the views of the Inspector. As outlined in council document MF15, the change to ‘at least’ has been made to promote flexibility and ensure that the neighbourhood planning figures are not considered as a ceiling for development levels by Neighbourhood Planning Groups. The use of 'at least' is common practice in Local Plans and should not equate to an unlimited amount of further development. The level of development set out for Bramley specifically reflects a number of factors including level of services/facilities in the area, housing need etc. and any development will need to meet draft Policy CN6 which requires development to provide towards additional infrastructure at a rate, scale and pace to meet the needs and requirements arising from developments”

Recent planning applications that have been agreed by BDBC for Bramley, now standing at 325 not counting Razors Farm, have not, with the exception of the 200 houses on Minchens Lane, contributed towards additional infrastructure required to give the residents the quality of life that they deserve and have a right to, with the infrastructure improvements lacking from previous developments.
They are contributing to the housing shortage of the BOROUGH and its lack of 5 year sustainable land availability, but of no benefit to Bramley.

So, it is obvious that the knowledge of residents who live in Bramley and have objected to the wording “AT LEAST” has had no influence on BDBC as to the undeserved damage that is being imposed on Bramley Parish.
With 325 houses already agreed against an original figure of “200 approximately”, has Bramley been flexible enough to have met “200 at least” when the housing shortage for Bramley was originally 72, this having been reduced on the housing register since the original allocation.

Is “200 at least” met with 325 housing? WHAT, WHERE IS THE FLEXIBLE END POINT?

The Parish Council will continue to fight for the rights of the residents of Bramley to give you the quality of life you deserve, have a right to, and which BDBC state within the Local Plan is there VISION:-

Paragraph 2.4

Basingstoke and Deane’s people, communities will be flourishing, enjoying an excellent quality of life and environment, which has been improved through well planned growth that draws on our strengths and secures vital improvements. It enriches the character and vitality of our villages and outstanding countryside.

Paragraph 2.8:-

Ensure that infrastructure is planned prior to development and delivered alongside development to meet the changing needs of our residents and employers.

Somewhere along the line this appears to have been bypassed, forgotten.

Malcolm Bell
Bramley Parish Councillor