The BBC News article on overthrowing the Council and his own objections for a new housing development in Devizes received a share from our MP Danny Kruger today, and his accompanying message didn’t take too kindly to it.
Up to two hundred new homes have been approved by a government inspector, despite fierce local opposition.
“Wiltshire needs (and is building) a lot of new homes – we don’t need ugly inappropriate imposed developments like this.” He explained. Reading between the lines here it’s all rather obvious that “ugly and inappropriate” are hidden synonyms for “affordable.”
The new estate by Robert Hitchins Ltd boasts 30% affordable housing, as well retail outlets and £500,000 towards funding works to the canal towpath to improve and provide accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. This is three times the national minimum requirement of 10% affordable housing, a generous percentage for what is really necessary here, and is rarely provided above the bare minimum, forcing young residents out to other places.
No one, I believe, wants further development in Devizes but we should face facts, there is a desperate requirement for affordable housing.
Danny waffles on, “This application was approved despite objections by me, CPRE [a countryside charity], the Town Council and all. Why? Because of the arbitrary Five-Year Housing Land Supply rule. I have raised this issue with Government and will continue to push for planning reform with more local power when it comes to decision making.”
Which connotes a positive response on the surface, yet other developments locally have been allowed, offering only the minimum amount of affordable housing. Why, he asks, why, I ask, are they so against this development, yet willingly approved the other applications? Because it would be housing younger and/or less affluent folk in the area who are far less likely to vote Conservative, there’s your bottom line right there; hook, line, and sinker.
To spin a positive from this, it shows local Conservatives are gravely concerned for their long considered “safe seat,” and fear the inevitable change might yet impact election results even here. We are in a financial crisis, only a few can even contemplate a mortgage, so why build unaffordable housing when there’s no requirement for it, but object to the real need of struggling families, Danny boy, eh, you homophobic chauvinistic evangelist nutjob who doesn’t even live here?! I got my eye on you!
devizine.com 
Dear Darren,
I’m afraid you’ve really got this wrong. Not about Kruger, although I find his conversion to opposing the 5-year housing land supply a rather dramatic and convenient vote-solidifying change-of-heart, but about the very real concerns regarding the Coate Road development.
The traffic from this housing estate would mostly use London Road, or rat-run via Coate to access the Swindon road. Adding potentially some 4-500 cars to that stream of traffic is a nightmare scenario by any account, which is why it was refused last time round, and nothing has changed in the interim. More affordable (and we can get into precisely what that is supposed to mean on another occasion, as in my view, it frequently is anything but!) housing is desperately needed, but there will be precious little of it on this or any other site if the developers do their usual cavalier approach and whittle down the numbers to as near zero as they can!
I have been on the Neighbourhood Plan team for over 10 years, and the most frustrating thing is that we cannot get the numbers of affordable housing up because developers just will not build them, so please don’t imagine that if this scheme went ahead, there would be a sudden upsurge in their numbers! The developer may well be bragging about 30% affordable housing, but we’ve been here before with other developer promises, and I’ve yet to see any dramatic increase in numbers of so-called affordable housing! Traffic jams would certainly increase, but not affordable housing numbers!
The best Wiltshire seems to be able to do is to propose a site for social housing at the western end of town where it is not only outside the settlement framework boundary, but its location also ignores the other criteria of the current Neighbourhood Plan which stipulates that the town centre, GP Surgeries, major shops and schools should all be within walking distance of any development! At well over a mile from any of these, this site fails, yet it is still likely to go ahead, with increased car usage, mainly because it is a Wilts Council proposal on Wilts Council land!
There are sites that are more appropriate than Coate Road, but they are not coming forward, and it is not unreasonable to assume that this is because the developers wouldn’t make as much profit on affordable builds as they would otherwise.
So there you have it: catch 22 personified! The original refusal really was all about the traffic and nothing to do with how any householders would vote. Goodness knows, the majority of folk here who do bother to use the ballot box would vote for a donkey wearing a blue rosette without much further inducement!
I appreciate your columns very much, but you’ve got the wrong end of the stick here, I’m afraid.
Kind regards From a decidedly not-a-Tory-supporter!
Judy Rose
LikeLike