Proposed changes to planning legislation which could lead to hundreds of extra homed being built every year in South Kesteven have attracted the opposition of Grantham Councillor Charmaine Morgan,

Coun Morgan, who is leader of the Labour Group on South Kesteven District Council, has penned this open letter to Grantham's MP Gareth Davies.

Recently, Nub News reported on the proposals, receiving comment from South Kesteven District Council and Rutland Council. We also sought comment from Mr Davies and Rutland MP Alicia Kearns at the time.

Dear Gareth As a member of SKDC Planning Committee for 7 years and local campaigner, I am hugely concerned at some of the changes proposed in the new Act being debated this week. The Act is ill conceived and rushed through a summer when Covid19 has dominated the news. Some recent changes have already seen a drop in rural affordable and social housing. Green spaces in our towns are being used as infill, removing important safe play areas and affecting the quality of life of local residents and local ecology. New development is permitted with lip service paid to design and impact on Highways traffic with associated safety, noise and air quality issues already. There is no requirement now for authorities to consider access to health services, dentists or GPS. In the case of Grantham, development plans are racing ahead despite the loss of our A&E unit and irreversible damage to local heritage. When 4000 archeological finds were made on Spitalgate and Saltersford site in Grantham there was no statutory requirement for SKDC to immediately notify Historic England. The new plans do not resolve these issues but could make matters worse. The input from members of the public is a significant part of the planning process. Once a decision is made it is virtually impossible for ordinary members of the public to challenge with the planning Inspector process lacking transparency and Judicial Review too costly. The automatic approval of new housing and development in areas earmarked for Renewal puts huge onus on local authorities to properly consult regarding their land allocation plans in the first instance. This is not without issue.

The new Act is unclear about how the new zones will be identified.

This is a crucial step if automatic planning permission will be granted in some areas. It raises a number of questions. Covid 19 and other financial constraints mean a heavy dependency on online consultations. The new Act enforces this. This move excludes a significant number of people. Especially in low income areas, without IT access or with poor broadband. The lamp post system may seem antiquated but draws attention to new development otherwise lost in reliance on an online system. To remove it, as planned in the Act, will affect the ability of people to input into the process. A constantly changing regulatory regime means members of the public and other interested parties, including planning officers, are having to revisit and/or respond to plans over and over. Those with a pecuniary interest, such as landowners and developers have the resources to do this. Not others. The provision of poor housing and other development can have a significant impact on the safety and quality of life of existing and new residents and businesses. Those suffering lost light and privacy or constant noise being examples. All can affect mental health and lead to ongoing disputes and antisocial behaviour. The local environment is at risk too. No one would argue that green sustainable eco build should have been part of our planning process years ago. This is very welcome.

However the Act does not go far enough to protect green spaces. There are relatively few green belt areas and SSSI areas are also limited. Swathes of green land, importantly agricultural land, are unprotected.

Although the Act talks of good design there is a balance between good design, affordability and profitability in a development regime driven by the private sector.

Landscaping provision for example is an important area included in conditions which developers frequently minimise in their initial applications. Waste collection areas, footpaths and cycle provision and lack of parking spaces and emergency vehicle access are frequently missed or badly designed. In rural areas existing Government guidelines are inadequate for parking when public transport, in desperate need of rebuilding, is so poor.

The lack of statutory consultation with fire & rescue service prior to development can put occupants at risk. By the time building regulations come in a house or building may be occupied.

Furthermore Rob Jenrick MP (Con-Newark) justifies the Act implying councils put unnecessary barriers in the way of key infrastructure, including hospitals. Most would welcome such development. It would make more sense however to protect the services we already have, restore the NHS hospital beds, A& E units and maternity units lost in the last decade. Grantham Hospital is a prime example of the Government's failure to do this. Staff as well as buildings are needed to restore vital services. Key workers, including carers need affordable homes. Do not allow Ministers to blame councils for failure in Government health policy.

The new Act is a license to developers to do what they want in earmarked Renewal areas.

SKDC has only refused 6% of planning applications in the last year, less than the average of 10% reported by the LGA, and less than the Government target.

Responsibility for delayed house building does NOT sit with Councils but Government reliance on private development, under- funding of council built social housing, loss of targets set for affordable housing in small builds in rural areas, the continued sale off of council housing and the poor regulation of developers once approval is granted. Developers and land owners are sitting on land with development approval. All play a part.

These drastic changes to our planning system are not necessary. A BBC Fact Check reports '... developers secure planning permission and then do not immediately build.

In 2017-18, 382,997 applications were granted, which would be more than enough to meet the government target of 300,000 new homes a year.'

Shelter and the Local Government Association are among those who have objected to the latest Act. They believe it will lead to tiny homes unsuitable for people to use.

You must listen to us if you are to represent your communities. Do not support this Act as it stands.

Regards

Charmaine District Councillor Charmaine Morgan

Labour Group Leader

South Kesteven District Council