Are we Nimby's in Babergh?

The Guardian today states that ‘Nimby Tories are ready to defy Osborne on housebuilding’ , implying that local councillors are standing in the way of necessary development.

I do not think that this is the case here in South Suffolk. In fact,  I am reasonably impressed by the way that Babergh councillors and officers have approached the difficult task of accommodating housing need while trying to keep the community on board.  There are some contentious applications in the local news at present, but often they are opposed for reasons other than pure ‘nimbyism’.

In Lavenham for example development at the Armorex site is supported in principle by the Parish Council, but there are serious reservations about aspects of the proposed scheme.  These include reasonable concerns about the density, parking arrangements, the height of some of the properties and also, perhaps most fundamentally, the low number of affordable houses proposed on the site.  Lavenham needs to be able to accommodate some young people and maintain a balanced social mix.  35% of residents in the village are over 65, and the special nature of the parish means that many houses are too expensive for local people. Negotiations with regard to this site are ongoing.

The recent application for houses at Carsons Drive in Great Cornard, which was turned down by the Development Committee on Wednesday, is another example.  Some Development will doubtless take place on the site in the end, but the low quality design of the scheme submitted by Persimmon was regarded as unacceptable, and there are also concerns about the ability of infrastructure, physical and social to cope with the number of houses envisaged.  I was delighted to see the committee express concern about the adjacent heritage asset, Abbas Hall, and hope that this marks a fresh approach that will benefit those of us who are continuing to campaign for preservation of the environment around Chilton Church and Hall in my Ward.

And then we come to Chilton Woods. 

I was disappointed at the ignorance shown by the writer of a letter criticising the scheme in the Free Press this week.  In addition to scaremongering about its eventual size, she demonstrates complete unawareness of the amount of work that has been done by elected members and local residents to ensure that the development is sustainable, generally acceptable to local people, ecologically friendly, and incorporating public transport and other traffic schemes that make it practical for car owners and non-car owners alike.   She also seems to be unaware that the aim is to develop a good proportion of the land for employment, including small workshops for business start-ups and craft workshops.

The fact that there has been little objection (no nimbyism in fact) to what is, admittedly, a major scheme shows that the community has been carefully consulted through the design and planning process.

Oh, and on the question of size, the effect of the development will not make Sudbury grow by 60% as stated in the Free Press letter.   It is hoped that Chilton Woods, and other development in and round Sudbury, will supply 60% of Babergh’s housing need in the 30 year period covered by the next Development Framework.  Not quite the same thing.

Conservatives at Babergh understand that the beautiful environment in which we live needs to be preserved, but at the same time also know that there will be a need for more housing in the years to come.  The key is to take time to reach consensus, to insist on high quality schemes,  and  to achieve the right balance.