News

The planned Aldershot Urban Extension
advertisement

Rushmoor opposes Waverley's 'cheeky' homes bid

By Nick Edmondson
October 05, 2012

A NEIGHBOURING council has made a “cheeky” proposal to offload some of its housing responsibilities onto the Aldershot Urban Extension.

Rushmoor Borough Council’s cabinet has objected to Waverley’s pre-submission Core Strategy document, which sets out the borough’s plans for its development until 2028.

Rushmoor warned that Waverley’s current strategy could have a serious impact on Aldershot and Farnborough.

The strategy document reveals that Waverley plans to provide 3,614 new homes by 2028, at an annual rate of 230 new homes a year, lower than the previous South East Plan housing requirement of 250 homes.

The document stated the shortfall was offset by Rushmoor proposing to deliver more housing than was called for by the South East Plan, due to the Aldershot Urban Extension, which will provide 3,850 new homes, 1,346 of which will be affordable housing.

The Rushmoor cabinet said it would object to the strategy, criticising Waverley for trying to pass its responsibilities on to other councils.

Cllr Roland Dibbs said: “We should certainly object to this – this is Waverley being very cheeky. They expect us to use our future housing to fulfil their needs.”

Councillors agreed to support a report written by head of planning Keith Holland, stating: “While it is recognised that Rushmoor is exceeding its housing target proposed in the South East Plan, this additional housing will go towards meeting Rushmoor’s own housing needs which are identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment as being an annual requirement for more than 1,000 dwellings a year.

“The core strategy identifies an annual housing need for affordable and market housing of 706 homes a year.

“The argument follows both ways that if Rushmoor is to meet some of Waverley's needs, then so too should Waverley be meeting some of Rushmoor’s housing needs.

“Reliance on Rushmoor to meet some of Waverley’s housing needs as a justification for reducing the annual housing requirement is therefore flawed as overall it will affect the ability to meet cross boundary housing needs.

"Moreover it should be noted that Rushmoor Borough Council previously raised its concerns over this issue with Waverley Borough Council during the preparation of the Core Strategy.”

The Aldershot Urban Extension, which has the working title of Wellesley, sits on an 150-acre site.

Development company Grainger plans to build 240 homes in the first stage of development, which it hopes to start in 2013.

Councillors argued the full benefit of such a large development should be isolated to Rushmoor residents, in order to minimise the need for further developments in the future.

Waverley’s strategy was criticised for a lack of detail on its plans to develop around Farnham, the closest settlement to the Rushmoor boundary.

According to the document, 1,295 new homes will be built in Farnham, with 434 of these proposed for greenfield sites.

“In relation to Farnham town centre, the current pull on shoppers from Aldershot and Farnborough could be exacerbated if the town centre were to grow beyond the anticipated growth in retail expenditure over the plan period,” Mr Holland added.

The core strategy will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate early in 2013. Rushmoor Borough Council will ask to attend hearing sessions to voice its objections to the strategy.

A Waverley Borough Council spokesman said: “Waverley will look at all the responses submitted together once the Core Strategy consultation has closed on October 5. We will take careful note of all the comments before finalising the Core Strategy to be formally presented to government.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (20)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 20

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

not enough social housing if you ask me

bluesy
15/10/2012 at 16:45

Rushmoor also opposes Nexts application for a second store in the borough of Surrey Heath. At the "Meadows".

Im guessing they are worried about losing footfall for Aldershot and Farnborough not to mention bussiness rates.

Mike Hawk
13/10/2012 at 15:43

@pjt - I agree we need the jobs in the north as well and that the govt are useless. (The governments marketing efforts to create Tech City should be in Manchester and not London.)

But companies locate in the southeast because of the easy access to a large pool of people and the people stay there because of the employment opportunities. Something needs to give at some point.

Personally I'm taking my own advice and selling up.

Matt Helliwell
11/10/2012 at 12:36

I'm at uni in the north and there are plenty of new homes being built around here. I don't know whether there are the jobs to match them but many of the properties are looking like they will be on the pricey side.

BlisteringBarnacles! , Farnborough
10/10/2012 at 15:09

Matt Helliwell - it is no good people deciding that the North is the place to go - the jobs have to be there.

Successive governments have failed miserably at shifting focus away from the South East; they should be doing more to encourage development in the North.

pjt
10/10/2012 at 08:33

Houses in the south-east are always going to be expensive whilst there are people willing and able to pay that price. Despite the socialist-style central housing planning you will not get away from the basic supply and demand issues.

The only long term solution is for people and companies to decide that the higher costs and lower quality of life in the south-east aren't worth it and move northwards.

Matt Helliwell
09/10/2012 at 14:10

There are other options available for first time buyers..... http://www.homebuy.co.uk/

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
08/10/2012 at 12:10

BlisteringBarnacles! - some are being supported but I know a few that are earning and it goes out as fast as it comes in, spent on a far more hedonistic lifestyle than my peers enjoyed - but yes, parents tend not to charge rent these days (I and my peers generally had to contribute). Priorities are different these days.

I would not be so negative about the chances owning a place - look at Ireland where prices have fallen through the floor. I do not think anything so drastic will happen here but they can still fall a long way. I lived through times of negative equity so maybe its better at the moment not to own. My only issue with not owning is the extortionate rents charged by “investor landlords” expecting big returns.

It will get harder as time goes by. Look at the way successive governments have failed to invest in science, engineering and education - we are being beaten in areas where we once excelled. Their track records are all poor. Not many know that the UK launched a satellite on a UK rocket - but Labour pulled the plug and now other nations have cornered this lucrative market.

As for paying for education. I support the Conservatives over Labour but education funding is a travesty. It hits our young hard - but mature students even harder. The older generation is hit too by ELQ legislation so a career change or correcting wrong choices is near impossible.

If I rulled the world I'd regulate rents - it would cut our benefits bill too.

pjt
07/10/2012 at 21:23

@pjt: I think you'll find that the 17 and 18 year olds you cite as being able to afford to run a car and go partying every night do not support themselves. The bulk of the money they get for these things will be given to them by their parents, with perhaps some earned from a job. I haven't got a car (indeed I can't even drive) but am lucky enough to be heavily supported financially by my parents to get through uni, along with the loan.

However, it's me and me alone that will be paying for my £40,000 + tuition fee once I have graduated (admittedly in long-term installments). Both the teenagers who drive and party and me will get a big shock when mum and dad's money stops flowing.

I don't know how old you are but I can wager pretty heavily that by the time I'm 40 there's a high chance that I still will not own any property. Most people in their 20s don't own or rent their own flat; they share with 2 or more other people. The price of oil is going up rapidly so that the sort of holiday my parents can afford to take me on by plane may be out of my reach by the time I'm their age.

I recognised that all generations will suffer, but I think the suffering will only increase with each new generation. It is my children and grandchildren's generation, for example, that will have to adapt to life with no fossil fuels and potentially devastating climate change. Their sacrifices could well match or exceed those of the wartime generations of the early 20th Century.

BlisteringBarnacles! , Farnborough
07/10/2012 at 14:51

BlisteringBarnacles!

Another interesting question is what the market price of these new homes will be.

How is it that my 20 year old, well maintained house with modern (updated) kitechen and bathrooms, with a good location, a garage and a garden front and back will sell for a little LESS than a smaller "walk in off the street" newbuild with one less bedroom, no garden and only allocated parking instead of a garage. Something has gone very wrong with the property market (and what's between the ears of the buyers).

pjt
07/10/2012 at 14:24

BlisteringBarnacles! Your generation pay for everything? No, not really - it is not that simple. Things are going to be worse for ALL generations.

When I was in my early 20s I could not afford a flat or a deposit for a flat, I could not even afford a car; this had to wait until I was 25 and when I could every hour behind the wheel meant one under the bonnet. My first house came in my mid 30s.

Today however, I know many kids with cars who are 17 to 18. I see kids spending small fortunes partying every weekend, expensive mobile phones, holidays abroad, iPads, iPods. I have no issue with this, but at the same time its no good saying that they can't raise a deposit. In my day we saved hard.

Like everyone else I am paying through the nolse to run my car, I'm paying huge council tax, I'll be paying my own care in my later years. I think the only thing we would agree on is that awful time when houses were seen by some as a short term investment and made killings; thankfully those times are gone!

pjt
07/10/2012 at 14:16

Oh, and in response to your latest comment (DanB), I think things in general are going to be more expensive for my generation. It is my parents' generation that has had it the best, but it seems that it is mine that will have to pay for everything :)

I'd love to live in London in the future but realise it's quite unrealistic unless I live in a one-room bedsit in somewhere like Camberwell. Ah well...

BlisteringBarnacles! , Farnborough
06/10/2012 at 17:33

@DanB: Thank's for the info and advice :)

No I haven't yet taken the plunge as far as housing goes as I'm in university halls of residence this year.

We'll just have to see what happens when the houses are actually built. I realise that at my age I know little of the housing market but all the same find it hard to believe that the council won't be able to just buy some of the houses for its own tenants.

I think Farnborough and Aldershot have the disadvantage of being average-to-not-very-well-off towns right in the middle of a very wealthy region where the properties are ludicrously expensive. I'm currently living in the opposite situation: the uni area is very affluent but Sheffield in general is a working class city.

BlisteringBarnacles! , Farnborough
06/10/2012 at 17:29

- That should've read 'don't BUY into any local homes for local people nonsense.'.

I hope people don't forget that it was Labour who created this mess (the supposed party for the ordinary man) and allowed a 2 bed semi to be an unattainable dream home for anyone under 40, and the current mob have done little to help the situation either. Labour in particular have betrayed a generation of young people and I am amazed that more people haven't grasped this yet. I am in my 30s now, but it will be even harder for most of your age group (@BB).

Dan B
06/10/2012 at 17:21

Blistering Barnacles, its a free market and not upto the council to decide who will buy the vast majority of the new homes. From reading your other posts, I understand you are still in your teenage years and off to uni so perhaps you have not yet taken the plunge on the housing ladder. If your parents are able to get you on the ladder you will be very fortunate, otherwise when you have completed Uni, tried to deal with some of the debt that will no doubt incur, spent a year or two as intern, then start out at the lower end of the payscale you will see the enormity of actually getting on the property ladder. Make no mistake, despite whatever spin is applied to this build by the developers, the council or politicians, I will bet a month's wages that the overwhelming majority of the homes will be bought by those living in more affluent areas, in particular London and its suburbs where prices are even more outrageous. After all, Aldershot is only 1 hour from London on the train and is perfectly commutable for anyone that wants to put themselves through that grind. Ditto other builds like those in Wokingham, Bracknell, Deepcut and the possible 4000 home build in Winchfield. It won't matter if there is 10 £180k 2 bed terraces on the market in Aldershot or 2000. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. And there will be too much demand from other towns that the developers will have no need to reduce the prices for locals. Don't be into any local homes for local people nonsense. I don't want to be pessimistic but this will do little to benefit exisiting residents in the borough, and reward them with additional traffic on roads already unable to cope, more pressure with doctor's surgeries and local services. I am trying to make the next move up the ladder and I am under no illusions that this will help.