Friday, February 16, 2007
The expansion debate
During Tuesday night's expansion debate in full council I was given the opportunity to ask a question, which I posed to the leader of the Lib Dems. I asked:
To ask the leader of the council to determine exactly how many new houses her party believes should be built to the east of the M1?
The minutes of the meeting will reflect that she said (and quote) "I believe that no new houses should be built to the east of the motorway".
What may not be recorded is the follow up question asked which was:
"Given that her party nodded through in June's Cabinet the South East Regional Plan without giving either full council or the public the opportunity to scrutinise it in detail, does she not consider her party to be dulpicitous and hypocritical to be claiming to defend the nature and character of rural North Buckinghamshire when that same plan that her party nodded through approved the building of over 1600 new houses east of the M1, or to put that into perspective, 70 houses in Sherington, 30 in Emberton, 35 in Moulsoe, 10 in Lathbury, 35 in North Crawley, or in more general terms the creation of the equivalent of 3 extra villages on the green space between Newport Pagnell and Olney between 2012 and 2026?"
Her response was that it was in fact only 120 houses...long pause... per year... before going on to defend her party as the only one to resist English Partnerships etc.
The Mayor allowed me to briefly rebutt. I challended Cllr I McCall on her arithmatic. She emphatically stated 120 a year, but no matter how many ways you add that up it still comes to a total of 1620 houses over 14 years which is 10% of the growth recommended in the Buchanan report that her party clainms to oppose. She would not go into how her comments that her party would commit to no new development east of the M1 and yet pave the way for 1620 houses to be built.
I also find it difficult to understand the line the Lib Dems are taking that it is beter to roll over and accept the development that English Partnerships are forcing down our throats than fight it because they could bypass us directly and have them impose development where they want it. But surely that is what they are doing already? The level of growth that English Partnerships are forcing on us is not sustainable growth. Why not draw a line in the sand and fight? The fact is that we do not have to accept EP at all.
Look at it politically. The Labour party will have their majority (should they win one) to paper thin proportions at the next general election. Mark Lancaster is in a relatively safe seat that Labour won't be winning back in a hurry and "Failing Phylis" Starkey is exposed. The Government will be faced with a choice in the run up to the election: reign in EP or loose your MP. A council united in that fight could actually slow, if not halt, EP in their tracks. But the Lib Dems are again trying to be play all sides of the argument.
The Lib Dems don't want expansion but they will do what EP tell them because they are opposed to the government but they don't want to upset the government in case they loose funding while fighting for the rural community they have agreed to build 1620 houses on.
Are you confused? I am!
Where do I stand?
Well for a start I am happy to agree to organic growth not expansion. Let me explain. Where I live in Emberton I have to the rear of the house farmland owned by a local family. To the side of the house is a strip of land the same width as the plot I live on that is part of that land, but not farmed. I would see no objection to that strip being "infilled" between my house and my neighbours a hundred yards up the road. Given the narrow single cariage road that serves my end of the village the only sustainable option (as you can't incerase the size of the road, sitting paralel to the A509 as it does) is to build a small number of 3, 4, or 5 bedroom houses.
"Expansion" of the kind English Partnerships want to see is a large number of high density, multiple occupancy homes, some of which are designated "low cost" (i.e. £60k to build £210K to sell) without any investment in the road that serves the current houses on Newport road or Prospect Place, no extra parking or ameneties, or improving the means of traversing the busy A509 that seperates my side of the village from the other.
I am content with the former, I oppose strongly the latter. The Lib dems on the other hand will be pushing more for the latter to meet their 105/1620 houses/3 villages quota.
I also got the chance to speak following the adjournment for 3 minutes. I called for an urgent review of health services as we only receive 95% of the fundinh in MK that we are supposed to and with no extra NHS investment on the horizon I queried how these "1620 Lib Dem Homes" in the villages are going to be served. Already I had to wait 6 months to find an NHS dental practice. The fact I have to travel to Leighton Buzzard because there were no places available anywhere in Milton Keynes as it is demonstrates what effect the expansion under the now approved SE Regional Plan would have on the communities. We simply wouldn't cope.
What the Lib Dems have done in agreeing to the 1620 houses is place our roads, schools, post offices, and health and liesure provision under strain. Already we are funding large amounts of debt financing (i.e. paying the interest on loans made to the council) because of the Lib Dems following the previous Labour councils "spend now pay later" attitude. Economists would describe the relationship between the increase in council tax revenue from 1620 homes and the amount that would need to be spent to keep infrastructure up to the standard it is now as "inelastic", or in other words the council tax income would be well below the amount needed to be spent, and that expenditure would increase more than tax revenue ever would. It would, in effect, worsen the hole in the fniances that is already getting bigger.
But what of the villages? If Emberton had to absorb the number of houses proposed under the SE Regional plan they would have to spread out towards Sherington. The village can't go out towards Olney as it already straddles the country park, it has no space in the centre of the village (unless you want to build onthe allotments by West Pits), Honey Hill is already developed, so it only leaves the area between Emberton and Sherington. If the two villages then merged into a small town (as would happen) then what would happen to the character of the villages?
I have already set out the Conservative vision. A dissolution of EP. A halt to the expansion plan. A local consultation in conjunction with Aylesbury Vale and Buckinghamshire on what we feel is sustainable, followed by a binding local referrendum on the proposals.
To ask the leader of the council to determine exactly how many new houses her party believes should be built to the east of the M1?
The minutes of the meeting will reflect that she said (and quote) "I believe that no new houses should be built to the east of the motorway".
What may not be recorded is the follow up question asked which was:
"Given that her party nodded through in June's Cabinet the South East Regional Plan without giving either full council or the public the opportunity to scrutinise it in detail, does she not consider her party to be dulpicitous and hypocritical to be claiming to defend the nature and character of rural North Buckinghamshire when that same plan that her party nodded through approved the building of over 1600 new houses east of the M1, or to put that into perspective, 70 houses in Sherington, 30 in Emberton, 35 in Moulsoe, 10 in Lathbury, 35 in North Crawley, or in more general terms the creation of the equivalent of 3 extra villages on the green space between Newport Pagnell and Olney between 2012 and 2026?"
Her response was that it was in fact only 120 houses...long pause... per year... before going on to defend her party as the only one to resist English Partnerships etc.
The Mayor allowed me to briefly rebutt. I challended Cllr I McCall on her arithmatic. She emphatically stated 120 a year, but no matter how many ways you add that up it still comes to a total of 1620 houses over 14 years which is 10% of the growth recommended in the Buchanan report that her party clainms to oppose. She would not go into how her comments that her party would commit to no new development east of the M1 and yet pave the way for 1620 houses to be built.
I also find it difficult to understand the line the Lib Dems are taking that it is beter to roll over and accept the development that English Partnerships are forcing down our throats than fight it because they could bypass us directly and have them impose development where they want it. But surely that is what they are doing already? The level of growth that English Partnerships are forcing on us is not sustainable growth. Why not draw a line in the sand and fight? The fact is that we do not have to accept EP at all.
Look at it politically. The Labour party will have their majority (should they win one) to paper thin proportions at the next general election. Mark Lancaster is in a relatively safe seat that Labour won't be winning back in a hurry and "Failing Phylis" Starkey is exposed. The Government will be faced with a choice in the run up to the election: reign in EP or loose your MP. A council united in that fight could actually slow, if not halt, EP in their tracks. But the Lib Dems are again trying to be play all sides of the argument.
The Lib Dems don't want expansion but they will do what EP tell them because they are opposed to the government but they don't want to upset the government in case they loose funding while fighting for the rural community they have agreed to build 1620 houses on.
Are you confused? I am!
Where do I stand?
Well for a start I am happy to agree to organic growth not expansion. Let me explain. Where I live in Emberton I have to the rear of the house farmland owned by a local family. To the side of the house is a strip of land the same width as the plot I live on that is part of that land, but not farmed. I would see no objection to that strip being "infilled" between my house and my neighbours a hundred yards up the road. Given the narrow single cariage road that serves my end of the village the only sustainable option (as you can't incerase the size of the road, sitting paralel to the A509 as it does) is to build a small number of 3, 4, or 5 bedroom houses.
"Expansion" of the kind English Partnerships want to see is a large number of high density, multiple occupancy homes, some of which are designated "low cost" (i.e. £60k to build £210K to sell) without any investment in the road that serves the current houses on Newport road or Prospect Place, no extra parking or ameneties, or improving the means of traversing the busy A509 that seperates my side of the village from the other.
I am content with the former, I oppose strongly the latter. The Lib dems on the other hand will be pushing more for the latter to meet their 105/1620 houses/3 villages quota.
I also got the chance to speak following the adjournment for 3 minutes. I called for an urgent review of health services as we only receive 95% of the fundinh in MK that we are supposed to and with no extra NHS investment on the horizon I queried how these "1620 Lib Dem Homes" in the villages are going to be served. Already I had to wait 6 months to find an NHS dental practice. The fact I have to travel to Leighton Buzzard because there were no places available anywhere in Milton Keynes as it is demonstrates what effect the expansion under the now approved SE Regional Plan would have on the communities. We simply wouldn't cope.
What the Lib Dems have done in agreeing to the 1620 houses is place our roads, schools, post offices, and health and liesure provision under strain. Already we are funding large amounts of debt financing (i.e. paying the interest on loans made to the council) because of the Lib Dems following the previous Labour councils "spend now pay later" attitude. Economists would describe the relationship between the increase in council tax revenue from 1620 homes and the amount that would need to be spent to keep infrastructure up to the standard it is now as "inelastic", or in other words the council tax income would be well below the amount needed to be spent, and that expenditure would increase more than tax revenue ever would. It would, in effect, worsen the hole in the fniances that is already getting bigger.
But what of the villages? If Emberton had to absorb the number of houses proposed under the SE Regional plan they would have to spread out towards Sherington. The village can't go out towards Olney as it already straddles the country park, it has no space in the centre of the village (unless you want to build onthe allotments by West Pits), Honey Hill is already developed, so it only leaves the area between Emberton and Sherington. If the two villages then merged into a small town (as would happen) then what would happen to the character of the villages?
I have already set out the Conservative vision. A dissolution of EP. A halt to the expansion plan. A local consultation in conjunction with Aylesbury Vale and Buckinghamshire on what we feel is sustainable, followed by a binding local referrendum on the proposals.
# posted by Sherington Tory @ 1:07 PM 
