Sunday 18th 11.00 at Plains-7 Stars, Walking Up to Market Square: Bring kids, banners, whistles
“They wouldn’t do that!” – famous last words. Tell that to folks whose town centres are neutered with hulking grey eyesores, temples to the god of concrete. We all know them.
If areas are in the ‘local plan’, they are open to be sold to developers as councils are both encouraged and pressured financially by this govt to do, in fitting with their wider Private Profit Public Cost sell-off agenda. David Cameron himself laughably wrote to his Oxfordshire council complaining about the embarrassing (to him) closure of libraries (caused by his govt’s cuts in funding to councils!) and asked that anything that possibly could be sold off to save his blushes.
In Totnes the central area (T3) is currently IN the ‘local plan’. No reassurances can replace TAKING IT OUT.
This is a summary from Totnes consultant Georgina Allen:
Totnes Central Area – the facts
- The area put forward in the Joint Plymouth and South West Devon Local Plan is called T3 – it looks at building 50 houses on Heaths Nursery Car Park and 20 at the back of the market on the car park. – pgs 32-35 in the Joint Plan Book
- The front area where the main market is will not have houses on it as the market square has a charter forbidding this, but the Joint Plan indicates that they could give permission for commercial units on either side of the market square proper.
- The reason the council have included this area in the Plan is because it had already been looked into and was in the last Plan and because they own the area.
- The council have seen their budget cut by 40% over the last few years and therefore need to make up the money. A sizeable proportion of their income comes from New Homes Bonuses, money the government gives them for every new house built in the South Hams and also from land they own, which they can sell to developers. They stand to make millions from selling our central area.
- The new Housing Act effectively takes planning control away from local councils and gives it to private inspectors – privatisation of planning.
- They have also included the markets and car parks in Kingsbridge and Salcombe into the Joint Plan.
- Once the Duke has been given permission to build the park and ride in Bridgetown/Berry he will also be given the permission to build shops and houses around it – his proposal is already in and is being discussed in Berry Pomeroy – the Duke wants to build hundreds and hundreds of new houses between Bridgetown and Berry Pomeroy and on the land stretching towards Paignton. If he promises social homes it is a false promise as he will have no say on what is built once it is sold. This is what has happened on Great Court Farm.
- Leechwell Gardens and the other central car parks could eventually also be built on if they are left in the Joint Plan – the Joint Plan gives almost automatic planning rights to any developer who buys the land contained in the Plan.
If you are concerned about this and want to know more please look at Facebook page –
Central Totnes Campaign
on the SHDC website (search Joint Plan)f you would like to comment to the council, you can send an email to email@example.com or phone the council and ask for the strategic planning team or Cllr Hicks, whose plan it is.
Thank you very much Georgina for that.
See you at the campaign stall opposite the market on Fri and Sat, and at 7 Stars for Celebration March on Sunday at 11.
KEVICC Playing Field is currently IN the plan for mixed housing and business development – 130 houses! – which is why in last week’s campaign meeting I asked, and it was agreed, to have it also as part of our demands to be removed from the sham ‘local plan’. Figures in the campaign group in this week’s meeting have asked that Kevicc should not be a distraction and we should not ask that it be removed from the plan, both for tactical reasons (connected with housing quotas and Bridgetown ‘developments’) and because, as a Totnes town councillor there assured “the agreement to fund a new all-weather pitch gold-plates it” as being safe (sic). Personally, I expressed that I would much rather we demand it be removed as the only truly reliable assurance, but agreed to accept this meeting’s direction on that.
Recent ‘Local Plan’ pieces: