By Paul Hollingsworth
Lichfields, contracted by the govern-ment, has identified an annual hous-ing need requirement for Spelthorne of 489 homes p.a., reduced from 606. This equates to a requirement of 1755 fewer homes over the 15 year period of the new Local Plan. Spelthorne Borough Council (SBC) stated previously that 1649 homes would need to be developed on Green Belt (GB). Surely this now obviates any need to build on any Green Belt in Spelthorne. The new number is at least more rational given Spelthorne’s unique aquatic geography. (Elmbridge, Mole Valley, and Waverley have seen their requirements increase). SBC is currently considering both a Staines-only and a Staines plus GB-light option to meet the re-duced requirement. Surely, SBC should be working flat out to fully cover the requirement with solely brownfield spaces and recalibrate densities accord-ing to London trends. In addition, many new brownfield opportunities exist due to the pandemic. Enfield shows how a local community task force can help towards this objective. Stratton Road, like other but not all sites, may well be spared for a few more years. It should be safe-guarded for the long term along with all threatened sites. 500 additional vehicles on Stratton Road would require Surrey County Council to complete-ly redesign the geography of the area, dangerously sided by two schools. In ‘Planning for the Future’ consultation, the government explains that GB and “areas of green space”, susceptible to flood risk, should have “restrictions defined in the National Planning Policy Framework”. Stratton Road and the other threatened sites require a “new deal”. It is one thing to defend a site and another to propose a different use of land. There is scope for renewal and rewilding. There is the future of James and his horses to consider. I believe that he rents the field from Persimmon. A conversation with the home builder is essential to safeguard the field from unnecessary obliteration. There is poten-tial to add amenity and environmental value and improve the current status quo of gradual degradation and piecemeal sale of chunks of land. MP Kwasi Kwarteng stated publicly that the Local Plan (LP) was “defeatist” and not appropriate for 2020. In his view, the original Harvey/Beardsmore LP did not reflect the government’s aim of “levelling up” the midlands and the north versus the saturated south east. He saw no need for GB development but rather a brownfield solution. In my own talks with residents, the unchecked overdevelopment of Sunbury green spaces in recent years is a common theme. It may seem that SBC has converted to protecting GB. Why such a change of heart? Besides the re-duced housing requirement, local residents and a few local councillors have protested, campaigned, and signed petitions. Elections are coming up soon. Councillors, still faced with the possibility at some stage of unitary extinction, realise that GB destruction is a vote-loser. SBC, like 10 other Bor-oughs and Districts in Surrey, will need to prove that they are relevant and a softer approach on GB may be part of their communication strategy. We all ask if this is a permanent change. SBC says that the Surrey Single Unitary is undem-ocratic. They may be right. But have they covered themselves in democratic glory? It has been alleged that SBC has failed governance and transparency tests, acted unlawfully with its property invest-ments funded by you and I, risking now a downsiz-ing of service provision or worse given unstable finances, and spectacularly come bottom of the country according to a Friends of the Earth survey. Of course, the Pandemic has changed things. And the provision of those in need (elderly, homeless, disabled) is “exceptional circumstances”. Taking away our GB, a psychological anchor during the Pandemic, is now and never was “exceptional cir-cumstances”.