Cllr Martin Elengorn explains the Borough's Development Plan[s] (Twickenham & Richmond Liberal Democrats)

Cllr Martin Elengorn explains the Borough's Development Plan[s]

October 20, 2008 11:16 AM

• CLLR Martin Elengorn, Cabinet Member for Environment, writes:

• 1. Planning decisions in Richmond have to be consistent with the policies in the 2005 Unitary Development Plan [UDP] which, as its date suggests, was adopted when the Conservatives last ran the borough. We are at a relatively early stage in producing its replacement, the Local Development Framework [LDF], which is likely to take effect in 2011. The Core Strategies are being considered by an Inspector this autumn. Meanwhile the 2005 UDP is the main point of reference for the Planning Committee and for the Planning Inspectorate.

• 2. Our development plan and the planning actions of the Mayor of London, whoever he or she is, have to be consistent with the current London Plan, in this case the February 2008 London Plan, adopted when Ken was still Mayor. Contrary to the expectations wrongly created by the Conservatives, Boris has to act in a way consistent with that Plan until, perhaps in three years' time, a new London Plan is adopted. Everything we have received from the Mayor's Office since Boris became Mayor shows that the policy framework remains, as it has to, exactly the same as when Ken was in office.

• 3. Far from the draft LDF offering less protection than now to garden land of environmental, ecological or recreational value, the intention is to develop policies that offer more protection than under the present 2005 Plan adopted by the Tories. The development policies, on which we will be consulting in 2009, will address these issues.

• 4. Use of gardens for housing is an important issue for local people and in many cases there are site-specific planning arguments against that enable schemes to be refused. The small number of approvals demonstrates this. There is residential accommodation for roughly 80,000 households in this borough. The pattern of recent years, under both Lib Dem and Tory Councils, has been each year to approve applications for about 80 extra households, building on gardens of private houses. This is an addition of about 0.1% per annum. Leaving aside windfall sites, about double that number is approved for provision in other ways, enabling our annual target figure of 270 (an addition of 0.3%) to be met. This is the lowest in London.

• 5. There is a separate issue of whether the legal planning designation of the curtilage (including gardens) of houses should continue to be the same as the house itself i.e. developed land or brownfield. This is a matter of national legislation which, we agree with Susan Kramer, should be reviewed by Parliament with a view to amendment.

The development plan is the product of a very thorough and open process set by legislation, involving much evidence-gathering and consultation. The Core Strategy, now with the Inspector is the product of such a process culminating locally in consideration by the Council's Environment and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Committee and by the Council. For all the clatter they are making now, the Tories had only minor suggestions to make at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and unaccountably absented themselves from the Council when the Strategy document came there for consideration. Belatedly they have since made a number of objections to the LDF Inspector and we must wait and see what she makes of them. As she has to be persuaded that the objections demonstrate that the Strategies are "unsound" they may be disappointed.

Richmond upon Thames Liberal Democrats: