Developers must plug £345m gap (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Developers must plug £345m gap
7:40am Monday 11th March 2013 in News
Developers must plug £345m gap
SWINDON has an estimated £345m funding gap for key infrastructure needed to support an extra 22,000 homes and 19,000 jobs over the next 13 years – and Swindon Council says it’s the responsibility of developers to plug it.
The council says to maintain housing growth in line with economic forecasts and population increases, and to limit development on greenfield land, it must earmark enough housing land for 22,000 new homes and 77.5hectares of additional employment land between 2011 and 2026.
The council’s infrastructure delivery plan (IDP) costs the total infrastructure needed for this growth at £822m, or £1.38bn including that associated with affordable housing. Infrastructure includes highways, schools, community centres, and open spaces.
However there is still a £345m funding gap after factoring in some £142.8m anticipated from developers’ contributions, £12.6m of council funding, and a further £321.6m from other sources, such as utility companies and public sector bodies.
Coun Dale Heenan, cabinet member for strategic planning and sustainability, said the onus was on developers to prove they had secured sufficient funds from public and other sources, and said the Government would have to contribute if it was so keen for development in Swindon.
Otherwise, he said the planning committee could use the IDP as grounds to reject a planning application, but admitted there were “no guarantees” that a development would definitely be stopped if the infrastructure cash was not there.
He said: “By 2026 the shortfall must be covered by developers or the Government otherwise development simply will not take place. Planning applications can, and should, be refused if the necessary infrastructure to mitigate their impact are not provided, and that requirement is clearly set out for everyone to see in the infrastructure delivery plan.
“This upfront and transparent approach should be supported by every resident, however sceptical they might be, because it is the right thing to do and only allows development on our terms. We must learn from the mistakes of our predecessors in the late 1990s and not repeat them over the next 15 years.”
He said the £100m Purton-Iffley Relief Road, the Thamesdown Drive extension, was not included in the IDP because the document focuses on infrastructure required for new development, adding that the proposed route is protected in the plan and MPs are lobbying Government for funding.
Les Durrant, managing director and chairman of planning consultant DPDS Cons- ulting, in Old Town, which has been involved in Wichelstowe and Ridgeway Farm, said he expected the shortfall to reduce as the costs were refined.
He said: “My guess is developers would try to drive these costs down as they drill down into the total. With some of the improvement schemes, they will prune out some of non-essential items. Everyone is going to A, prioritise, and B, find more cost-effective solutions.”
Coun Brian Osbourn, chairman of Covingham Parish Council, which is concerned about the knock-on effects from the planned Eastern Villages, said he was concerned the developers would build without the infrastructure.
He said: “It’s not coming from the Government; it’s not coming from the borough, it’s supposed to come from developers. Can you see the developer paying that sort of money out? I personally cannot.”
Comments(9)
whaddahey?!
says...
11:53am Mon 11 Mar 13
Its about time that SBC stopped rolling over to all and every developer. Growth and redevelopment and investment is one thing, but not at the expense of seeing housing go up everywhere and anywhere without thought for either their location, look of them or the infrastructure needed to support the new residents.
Swindon should not be regarded by the rest of the country as a place so architecturally and culturally unimportant that anything can be thrown up here without though to the long term.
Its our town. People keep talking about being proud to live here but where's the pride in knowing that most of what we get is second best? Swindon doesn't belong to Persimmon Homes, Ashfield land or any other developer. If they want to come and do business here, they can't just chuck stuff up, rake in a profit and then disappear, leaving our infrastructure creaking in their wake.
Sutainable sensitive development is a partnership between the town residents and business in which both parties should have a say. At the moment, it seems to an increasing number of people that we get little or nothing.
RichardR1
says...
12:06pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Robh
says...
12:07pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Oakhurst drive is almost impossible to cross as is the road through St Andrews Ridge. They are at present suffering approx 1200 cars per hour in the morning. Far too much for the existing roads and things can only get far worse with the new housing.
They seem to be working on the principle that if the motorists get too many traffic problems they will go by bus. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
The car gives people the freedom to live, work, shop and take part in leisure activities where ever they want. It is their choice so if you make it difficult for them they will simply go somewhere else.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
12:12pm Mon 11 Mar 13
It's all hollow words - without getting national planning laws changed there's nothing that can be done about it. In the meantime, we all get to deal with the effects of these decisions.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
12:14pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Robh wrote:Of course in many cases there simply isn't a bus - many of the previous routes have been removed...
The road system around north Swindon is a shambles with pinsh points each end of Thamesdown Drive. Traffic is creating rat runs through estates to try to avoid the jams and the people responsible for the roads have been lying to the public to pass the plans.
Oakhurst drive is almost impossible to cross as is the road through St Andrews Ridge. They are at present suffering approx 1200 cars per hour in the morning. Far too much for the existing roads and things can only get far worse with the new housing.
They seem to be working on the principle that if the motorists get too many traffic problems they will go by bus. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
The car gives people the freedom to live, work, shop and take part in leisure activities where ever they want. It is their choice so if you make it difficult for them they will simply go somewhere else.
house on the hill
says...
1:55pm Mon 11 Mar 13
as for the idea that it would reduce development thats a good thing as we would only have development that will enhance the town not detract even further and cause even worse traffic problems than we have now. Unchecked building is not a good thing and I hope the council stick by this (unless a few palms are greased of course!)
Robh
says...
3:41pm Mon 11 Mar 13
A long time ago I had a friend whose husband work for Thames Water. He got promoted and had to work at Oxford. The supervisor in Swindon lived in Oxford so they passed each other every day to do the same job for the same money. How any others have the same situation? Perhaps we should set up a job swop company to match people with similar jobs local to where they live.
Education is the first thing to tackle then we would not have so many schools closed in bad weather. Of course I wouldn't suggest a forced move of job but at least let people have the option.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
6:14pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Robh wrote:For the northern development that was indeed the principle and why there are so few parking spaces and the roads clogged up with parked cars.
The road system around north Swindon is a shambles with pinsh points each end of Thamesdown Drive. Traffic is creating rat runs through estates to try to avoid the jams and the people responsible for the roads have been lying to the public to pass the plans.
Oakhurst drive is almost impossible to cross as is the road through St Andrews Ridge. They are at present suffering approx 1200 cars per hour in the morning. Far too much for the existing roads and things can only get far worse with the new housing.
They seem to be working on the principle that if the motorists get too many traffic problems they will go by bus. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
The car gives people the freedom to live, work, shop and take part in leisure activities where ever they want. It is their choice so if you make it difficult for them they will simply go somewhere else.
RichardR1 says...
9:35am Mon 11 Mar 13