Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Supervision

Do we need new homes?

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

"The timescale in which they come forward needs to be reviewed"
Lyn Martin-Bennison
Published Date:
09 March 2010
News reporter
Plans for thousands of new homes should be reviewed in the wake of the recession, councillors have said.
Earlier this month, the Government said planning permission must be given for about 5,000 homes at Upper Redhill, as well as plans for about 3,700 houses at Wellingborough East.

But the borough council has said it wants the timescale of its target
s to be reviewed.

Councillors would like to see the review made in light of the recession and also because developers have still to put forward detailed plans for Wellingborough East.

The council's deputy leader, Paul Bell, said: "I think we have to review the whole expansion programme."

He added: "Do we need 13,000 new homes in Wellingborough?"

The council's chief executive, Lyn Martin-Bennison, said: "The housing targets that were set some years ago are unrealistic in the current economic climate.

"The timescale in which they come forward needs to be reviewed."

Andrew Longley, from the North Northants Joint Planning Unit, said the phasing of development has gone awry because of the recession.

Regional housing targets include the building of new homes from 2021 to 2026 and up to 2031.

Mr Longley said a review of these targets would have happened at this stage anyway.

He said: "We are looking at what growth is deliverable and clearly there are issues in Wellingborough as Wellingborough East hasn't come forward.

"We will have extra houses to provide beyond 2021 and there will be debate about where those houses go.

"There may be areas in north Northamptonshire which are better suited or more receptive to accommodate some of that additional housing."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 March 2010 9:55 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Kettering
 
Prev
1
Next
1

NicB,

09/03/2010 12:22:17
Do we need them? That's not really a useful question. The current population doesn't, but that ignores general mobility, freedom, choice and growth.

Do we want them? The government wants us to build them, but a lot of existing residents certainly don't. (Personally, I'm pretty neutral on that question)

Do we have the space for them? Yes, we've got plenty of brownfield, although the developers all seem pretty intent on concreting over the countryside for the majority of them. This is one reason I do fall into the "anti" camp - redevelopment of run down or used areas and buildings should always be done before building over the countryside.

Do we have the infrastructure for them?
Absolutely not, and that's why I'm totally against it. The developers are building houses. We need improved roads, wider spread and larger medical facilities, faster, more frequent and capacious trains to London, power grid upgrades, sewerage upgrades, fresh water supplies, leisure facilities, and the list goes on.

And, only yesterday, the ET reported on the fact that there won't be enough jobs in the area to drive any growth.

This building needs to be barred, until the developers have paid for and built the required infrastructure, and more jobs are available
2

DT,

Kettering 09/03/2010 13:10:42
The problem arises because this government believes in central planning, like communists. The people who are best placed to know what is needed and what isn't are the local people and council.
In this area, the government has projected a growth forecast of people and jobs, that is based on what, exactly? The houses get built first because that is the only think they can actually control.
For me, jobs first, then if people come, infrastructure and then houses. There are already enough local people struggling to survive without making them even smaller fish in a bigger pond.
3

NicB,

09/03/2010 15:07:22
@DT> For me, jobs first, then if people come, infrastructure and then houses

Sounds like the right order to me too.
4

bounty,

Paul Lashmar in Barton Seagrave 09/03/2010 15:31:49
KBC Passed a motion at full council last April saying exactly the same...the test on whether they will back that motion is Kettering East.

Just Before Christmas, Mr Evans from NNDEV also said this is what he expected, but it is the responsibility of the local councils to enforce this.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.