Don’t Bother With Brownfield, Raid the Greenbelt Say Government Inspectors

The government’s new national planning framework has been running for a year now and the effects are highlighted in a report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. The contents of this report will ring alarm bells for anyone who cares about the countryside around Dinnington.

There has always been a “brownfield first” presumption in planning which means previously developed land must be used before digging up open countryside. Developers don’t like this as it’s more expensive and means they are often restricted to building in less desirable locations. Now government inspectors are beginning to allow developers to ignore this principle if alternative sites are not considered “deliverable” This means that if a developer feels they cannot make sufficient profit from brownfield they will be allowed to go straight to the greenbelt.

Sustainability is being thrown out of the window as this test of “deliver-ability” starts to take precedence.

Developers are being allowed to drop hundreds of houses onto open country without making any contribution to local infrastructure, even in areas considered to have outstanding natural beauty. Government is taking the housing figures in authority’s local plans as minimums and smaller authorities like Rotherham are being forced to “co-operate” with larger ones like Sheffield to accommodate over spill.

What does this mean for Dinnington? Well we are constantly told by Rotherham Council that we have to allow a huge extension of at least 700 houses onto our greenbelt to ensure the “local plan” they are putting together is acceptable to government.

But if these plans are being ignored now anyway, as the CPRE’s report seems to indicate, what is the point? We may as well run with no plan and just fight every application as and when it comes up. Figures like the 1300 houses in total and 700 on greenbelt are now going to be treated as minimums and could inflate dramatically over the life of the plan.

The government is also relaxing the laws which require new developments to include a certain proportion of affordable housing. I think this disproves once and for all the defense used by many (including some borough Councillors) for the house building plan; that the new houses planned for Dinnington are intended to benefit our community by being affordable and for local people.

In light of this information could I please ask that Anston Parish Council stop coming up with excuses to avoid debating an objection to Rotherham Council’s Core Strategy and finally get off the fence.

Could I also make the same request of Kevin Barron MP who seems to be positively welded to the fence on this issue. The whole of Rother Valley is being disadvantaged by this plan, so please Kevin start representing your constituents instead of running scared on the issue.

They should be demanding that the local plan be changed so as to more fairly spread the development over the next 15 years throughout the borough and not just heap it in a small number of places like the Dinnington and Anston greenbelt.

Come on people, pull your fingers out!

A summary of the CPRE report is here.

Further info here.

4 thoughts on “Don’t Bother With Brownfield, Raid the Greenbelt Say Government Inspectors

  1. Tim Wells's avatarTim Wells

    If you walk down the Sheffield canal from Tinsley to the city centre, there is a massive area either side of it, that is brownfield and perfect for development, for affordable homes for people who work in Sheffield, but will also provide them with good leisure facilities and transport links. Bearing in mind 100K used to live in Attercliffe, then there is ample space to accommodate the over spill from Sheffield, without building on the greenbelt. Sheffield’s maximum population was 570K in the 1950’s, before it doubled in size and took up massive area’s of the green belt in the Mosborough townships.

    Reply
    1. lovedinnington's avatarlovedinnington Post author

      Brownfield is expensive and at the end of the day I suppose developers can charge more for houses in the countryside than houses in inner city areas, esp less fashionable ones like Attercliffe!

      Reply
  2. Tim Wells's avatarTim Wells

    I think you will find that houses in the cities are more expensive than those in the countryside. At the end of the day they will still make enough money building on brownfield sites. Two good examples are actually in Darnall, one by the rail station and the other underneath the canal on the old Brown bailey site.

    Reply
    1. lovedinnington's avatarlovedinnington Post author

      Depends where in the city, having just moved from Sheffield some parts are actually cheaper than Dinno, but then places on the fashionable side are prob 3x dinno prices.

      Reply

Leave a reply to Tim Wells Cancel reply