Following the news that Conservative PPC Ron Bell has received just a slap on the wrist for not declaring £5,000 in donations he accepted from Kensington Developments, the housebuilder has promised to make a further donation before the general election.
Apparently Ron Bell contravened the councillors’ code of conduct because of “the existence and nature of his personal interest” arising from his “close association” with Kensington. I want to know what this personal interest actually is. We know Bell is involved in property because it says so on his website and we know he’s mates with Kensington bosses as he’s often seen hobnobbing with them at Bloomfield Road.
But what would be in it for Ron if Kensington get the planning permission they have been seeking for the last decade? Obviously something that he wants to keep a secret, hence the smoke and mirrors tactics employed by his campaign manager Cllr Ian Fowler in relation to that donations letter.
This concludes the Kensingtongate saga. I guess I’m not the only one that is thoroughly unsurprised that nobody has been found guilty and all politically affiliated have been whitewashed. It doesn’t, however, absolve them from any blame from furious constituents and I do believe Mr Bell will feel the wrath on this front – especially after Kenrickgate and especially if Labour decide to campaign on it.
The Ethical standards officer considered whether Councillor Bell had a potential personal interest in any business of the authority that might reasonably be regarded as affecting either his financial position or well being, or the financial position or well-being of his close associates.
She noted that Councillor Bell’s financial position and well being were affected by donations towards his election campaign.
The ethical standards officer found that Councillor Bell had an ongoing relationship of donee/donor with the directors of the company. Given the size of the donations and the importance of them to Councillor Bell, she considered that the directors were people with whom Councillor Bell had a close association.
The ethical standards officer noted that the opposition motion would have delayed the council’s final decision on the core strategy relating to Marton Moss and, in principle, could have further delayed a council planning decision on the company’s outstanding application. The motion might reasonably be regarded as capable of affecting the financial position of the company. The ethical standards officer considered that Councillor Bell had a personal interest in relation to the motion debated on 18 March 2009 because of his close association with the company. Councillor Bell did not declare the existence and nature of his personal interest arising from that close association at the 18 March meeting. Councillor Bell failed to comply with paragraph 9(1) of the code of conduct.
loading…
I’m pretty sure this will make interesting reading for some of Cllr. Bells colleagues!
http://www.standardsforengland.gov.uk/CaseinformationReporting/SfEcasesummaries/Casesummaries/B/BlackpoolBoroughCouncil/Name,26697,en.asp
Marsden must be laughing his bollocks off!!!
May be worth looking at the other Councillors whilst you are on the site! They don’t fare much better but still “get away with it”
loading...
I failed to do my homework there didn’t I! This is a goldmine.
loading...
Ron Bell has screwed up, hes lost credibility and handed Marsden (Exeter) votes,TB will be fuming!
loading...
Makes for interesting readiung doesn’t it! I know some of the players at the very heart of this and they will be very very dissapointed with Cllr. Bell!!!!
loading...
I am shocked by the lack of action by the local Cons. They had a chance to show the public that they had lerned a lesson from the standing MPs (that beening we are a bit fed up of drity MPs) but they don’t. Do you think this means the Cons have given up on Bpool South and feel it is unwinable?
loading...
Yes.
They dropped Blackpool South as a target seat and he doesn’t really get much money off them to campaign.
loading...
I must admit I never thought the cons took wining Bpool south that seriouisly. I think they are looking at winning Bpool north.
loading...
It’s a target seat yes. There’s a fair chance of a victory for the Conservatives but I wouldn’t say it’s a foregone conclusion.
As you know I went to have a brew with the Tory candidate and he talks my kind of language, but a little bird tells me the local Conservative party hierarchy is against both PPCs for varying reasons.
They don’t like Bell because the Callows believe that Maxine should have been chosen as the PPC. They don’t like Maynard because they think he’s stepping on their toes all the time and making them look foolish. I heard from someone else that they didn’t even want him campaigning in their ward.
It also says a lot when the Conservative council leader will shop one of his politically affiliated PPCs to the local newspaper.
loading...
The callows as PPcs, thats obscene, they are a disgrace to any political party,even the chimpanzee tea party.
The brother/sister duo of mediocrity are truly repulsive and vision deficent.
pair of plankton headed fucktards
loading...
mad maxine callow as MP??? seriously?
Jesus fuckin christ!
loading...
You are right Harold I am fuming because I so desparately want this seat to turn back to blue (its natural colour) Marsden is fucking useless and thinks he is too good for Blackpool, he doesn’t even live here but yet sheep still vote for him. The only thing we know for definite is that, that pillock Hamish won’t win. MARSDEN OUT 2010!!!! Blackpool will suffer if Liebour stay in. Come on Blackpool South this is our chance to get Labour out of the Fylde Coast once and for all.
loading...
You say labour supporters are sheep?
loading...
Yes I do because as far as I am concerned they are, you only have to look at frustratedofblackpool, davie@layton and cardy plus other Labour lovers on the Gasjet to see what I mean. Here is a fine example of their sheepishness and hypocrisy. When the plans for the new FE College on Central Drive were all set to go the Labour supporters (as above) were all ‘Another triumph for the Labour council and thanks to Marsden for his hard work in securing the Labour Government funding’. Then the project gets cancelled because of a GOVERNMENT cock up the quango Learning and Skills Council lost our funding and indefinitely postponed the project so the Liebour sheep suddenly start saying ‘Oh look the Tory Council have lost the funding’. When things go right Labour is the reason, when things go wrong they blame the Council, they are total hypocrites.
loading...
Shame we seem to have lost Dustin. He/she always made me laugh that no matter how bad the story was for Labour they’d have some totally unreasonable reason for believing they were still the best at everything.
loading...
Very true Frustrated, I never did understood where they disappeared but good riddance to him I say, at first he would try and shoot down my posts with his nonsensical pro-Labour rants. But then he started getting really nasty with his comments against me and became just a plain grade A twat
loading...
You do have to laugh at some comments made about PPC like “Paul Maynard was seen with a PNE scarf” I think that’s to mean because he is a PNE fan he would not be interested in Blackpool. But to call all labour supporters sheep is a bit silly because the labour party support is drifting away so not all labour party supporters can be sheep can they?
loading...
Not of all them, just an awful lot of them. I thought that was a hilariously misguided comment from davie he was clearly just trying to throw together a load of insults against Paul Maynard. I haye football anyway so I don’t care who he supports and anyway people have the right to support who they want. I know loads of friends who support Man U, Liverpool even some PNE (moved from Preston) fans. davie@layton’s comments about Mr Mayard were just nonsense.
loading...
Well those that drift away are not Labour supporters then are they
I think what True BP means is the die hard Labour voters that believe Labour still stands for the kind of thing that Michael Foot campaigned on and will vote Labour rain or shine despite having no idea what they stand for these days.
Tends to have some kind of financial envy, “all Tories are rich, it’s not fair, lets vote them out” or, political stereotype, “Tories only care about rich people”.
To quote commenter Dr Bunsen, who lives in Scotland, “a chimp could get elected with a Labour rosette”.
loading...
If they don’t vote then there not Labour supports to true. As for the rest of the comment surly the same can be said about a section of conservative supporters.
loading...
Phil perfectly sums up my comment, that is partly what I was trying to say. I usually find Conservative supporters more willing to criticise the party. I will happily criticise the party when I disagree with them whereas most Labour supporters will vote Labour no matter what. They will vote Labour for silly reasons like believing all these stupid stereotypes about the Conservatives and blaming them for the countries problems when Liebour has been wrecking the country for the last 13 years.
loading...
Bullshit it really is “Us Conservatives are so much more reasonable then the scummy Labour people all they want is something for nothing”. Do you wonder why the most disliked labour government ever is still in the race for the election with that sort of attitude? I voted for them in the past but I am not this time and I can’t understand people who will except when I read dickhead generalisations of people who don’t.
loading...
Right on TB, I was a labour supporter but under labour inequality has grown as measured by the gini coefficent,they have wasted bilions upon billions.Anyone voting labour now, must need their head examining.
loading...
Now heres a shock I agree with Harold
loading...
The gini coefficent improved under John major, but got worse under nulabour, I suggest reading “Robert Peston’s ” who runs Britain”; the recession here is in part down to NULABOUR, with Brown as chancellor
LABOUR, NEVER AGAIN!
loading...
I think we should say NuLabour never again
loading...
Blackpool has always been blue as far as I can remember, MARSDEN OUT, LIEBOUR OUT!
loading...
Hear Hear Harold
loading...
Not for the last 13 years
loading...
Just a blip
loading...
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Blackpool_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Blackpool south has been a blue seat for many many years, the labour hold is just that, a blip, when you look ast the time frame.
Blackpool in general has always been a traditional conservative area.
so what you are saying John counts for very little indeed.
loading...
13 years its a fact (a real one)
loading...
out of the time frame its a fuckin fraction, a real fraction
loading...
if we are talking about fuckin fraction then mostly Blackpool has been pro dinasors. All i am saying it doesn’t matter what blackpool use to be just what it is now.
loading...
The current council is conservative and are REAL dinosaurs, I support neither party, just stating a fact that Blackpool has a long history of being blue.You could argue that conservatives under the adminstration that rid the town of derby baths ,have helped it to be the slum today, I wouldnt disagree with you there John.
Conservatives = labour = cunts in my book
I am just stating facts thats all,both labour and conservative have fucked the town.
loading...
http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/2001/3/2/690358.html
loading...
Dont forget Tom Percival, he was a cunt and a tory.
loading...
A lot of chat but to what end !
House of Commons Debate on Sustainable Housing (Blackpool)
11 am 4 Nov 2009
Mr. Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) (Lab):
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings, and a pleasure to talk about the issues to do with Marton Moss and sustainable strategies in Blackpool.
When I was a child growing up in Manchester and Stockport, one of the highlights of our annual visits to Blackpool, after we had done the golden mile and, hopefully, won something on the grab machines and gone on the beach was to go out of the back of the town, which in those days did not have the excellent motorway connection that it has today, and pick up Blackpool home-grown tomatoes from one of the nurseries on Marton Moss. There are not as many nurseries there now as there were when I was a child, but Marton Moss still retains that essential semi-rural character: Blackpool’s oldest cottage is nearby-”Blowing Sands”. It is criss-crossed with dykes and there are still market gardens, there are horses in paddocks, seven or eight species of birds in many residents’ gardens and an 18th century cattle shelter. That is perhaps not what people would expect to find in Blackpool.
This debate is designed to underline a major planning controversy that has blown up about proposals to build hundreds and, in the long run, thousands, of homes in this area and to highlight big challenges about the sustainability and affordability of housing and the regeneration in central areas of Blackpool. The controversy has led to a sustained 12-month campaign to save the Moss, supported across Blackpool by me, as the local Member of Parliament, and by thousands of local residents. It has been further heightened by revelations that the developers wishing to build on the Moss made two £5,000 donations to the Blackpool, South Conservative association-the council is Conservative controlled.
The controversy over the Moss was a central issue in a by-election in the ward in August, not least because of some of the key figures involved in the campaign and allegations that some of the councillors involved would have to decide on the Kensington Developments planning applications. The controversy also throws up big, general questions about the need to have a coherent strategy to link the siting of new homes with coherent skills, employment and environmental policies and the Government’s desire to give preference to brownfield over greenfield developments.
Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab):
Does my hon. Friend agree that one key reason for looking at brownfield sites is that Blackpool has a high water table? If we build on Greenfield sites, we create a danger of flooding not just in Marton Moss, but in parts of Blackpool, North, which I represent, where we have seen exactly that happen.
Mr. Marsden: My hon. Friend is right. I will illustrate some severe concerns about the sustainability of such a major development on Marton Moss, as is currently proposed.
There are two separate developments at issue. First, the council’s core strategy presently envisages nearly 3,000 houses being built in the Marton Moss area.
Secondly, there are two specific planning applications from Kensington Developments to build between 500 and 700 houses, with double that amount of car parking space, on a 17 hectare site. Kensington proposes building on land that already floods frequently and has inadequate sewerage services and roads to cope with such a major expansion. The Kensington applications contain no significant low-carbon or sustainability proposals, no targets for affordable housing and no comments on the threat to local wildlife that is prevalent in the area that would be produced by such a development.
Another issue that is not unimportant is that many other houses that have been built in and around the Marton Moss area in recent years remain unsold. At a time of economic downturn and a certain degree of stagnation in the housing market, there must be grave questions about whether a development of this size would be sold off rapidly.
A key issue is that the council has never had a major consultation with people in the area, either on the core strategy or the Kensington applications, although, as I shall argue, local residents have, in responding to my survey on the issue and via petitions, certainly not been silent on that.
Kensington has been a major developer in the area of Fylde and Blackpool. In late 2008, having sniffed around for about 12 months, trying to acquire parcels of land in and around the Marton Moss area, it formally put in its first planning application for up to 640 houses. On 11 November 2008, I wrote to the team leader for development control in Blackpool borough council, underlining the objections that had already flooded in to me from large numbers of residents in the area about the development, including
“Little consideration for the implications of such a large scale development on congestion and road conditions”,
where there are already
“a number of narrow roads never designed for such a large scale expansion of housing…The potential for deep and significant problems from a major building project…on land where past experience and local knowledge suggests that it could be unstable and unsatisfactory long term for such a development. There are”-
this touches on what my hon. Friend said-
“existing drainage problems in and around Midgeland Road”-on the Moss
“and the impact on the water table could be severe…Concerns that the character of the area and the richness of its wildlife…could be irreparably damaged by a development which would involve the loss of hedgerows”,
destruction of trees, encroachment
“on breeding and foraging habitats as well as…the ability of people to exercise their animals freely-together with small businesses who are sustained by the rural character of the Moss.”
Finally, I mentioned
“An unacceptable pressure put on existing services-whether schools, doctors or other public provision-in the area as a result of expansion which,”
I underlined,
“did not take into account such increased need.”
Subsequently, when Kensington appealed initially, in June 2009 I added some comments in a letter underlining the concerns about development, saying:
“I believe in this respect that the Kensington proposals are antipathetic to the Government’s and”, in particular,
“DCLG’s objectives of creating high quality, sustainable mixed and inclusive communities”.
That was the situation then. But at the same time as the development application had been submitted, the council was producing its own core housing strategy, which produced the large numbers projected over a 15 to 20-year period that I have mentioned. In its defence, the council talked about the need to address the growth point strategy that it had signed up for in 2007 with four other councils. I should like to go back to what the council was obliged or not obliged to do as a result of that. I quote from the general criteria the council was given by the Government in the growth points document on the Department for Communities and Local Government website, which talks about the growth point strategy:
“The Government invited local authorities to submit strategic growth proposals which were sustainable, acceptable environmentally and realistic in terms of infrastructure…proposals will need to set out their local and strategic impacts on the environment (for example regarding water supply, flooding and sewerage)”.
There are grave doubts about all those areas in respect of major developments on Marton Moss. The council, in its 2008 document on the central Lancashire and Blackpool growth point, which it signed up to, said that in that area sustainability was its most important consideration.
When the initial core strategy was produced in March 2009, there was an enormous amount of protest. I received 400 plus responses from constituents that were almost unanimously against both the core strategy as it then was and the Kensington application. On Friday 6 March there was a protest meeting at Highfield school in my constituency, near the Moss area, at which I spoke. The leader of the “Save Our Moss” campaign, Angelia Hinds, spoke as well. I pay tribute to Angelia Hinds and all her colleagues on that committee for their sustained and detailed questioning of the council and the developers throughout the whole process. At a council meeting on 15 March, Councillor Fred Jackson, a colleague, moved an amendment to the core strategy to prevent a decision being made on it without proper consultation and detailed examples of its impact. The council gave neither, but moved the goalposts rapidly.
What are the opposition and the arguments? Of course people who live on the Moss, both old and new residents, are concerned and passionate about their circumstances. They have a quality of life that they want to preserve. The practical objections are to the council’s core strategy for the whole of Blackpool, as well as what may or may not happen on Marton Moss with Kensington’s large development. There is opposition from ecologists at Lancashire county council, and the protesters have a strong understanding about the choices to be made between peripheral and central development in Blackpool.
Many hon. Members know about Blackpool’s history. Its drive for regeneration and its bid for the casino and so on were posited on our need for growth, development and stimulus in the town’s central areas, where some wards are among the most deprived in the country. I have said repeatedly, and said at the protest meeting, that money is available from the Government and other sources for a properly costed regeneration strategy for housing in that area.
The Moss is called that for a reason. Blackpool is riddled with examples of over-optimistic building producing sunken driveways and constant flooding. I could take you to parts of my constituency, Mr. Cummings, where expensive houses that were built on the periphery several years ago have driveways that are not level, but are v-shaped, because they are in areas where the sand meets the moss. That is why people who live in south Blackpool are known as sandgrown’uns, and those who live at Marton Moss are known as mossheads. There is a lot of history behind the reasons for being cautious about building in the area.
In the wake of all that criticism, the council delayed, and Kensington became impatient and appealed to the Department for Communities and Local Government, when the Government’s planning inspectorate stepped in and said that the matter would have to be referred. On 4 June, the front page of my local newspaper, the Blackpool Gazette, quoted the Government’s inspector:
“The size of the proposals would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply, and create high quality sustainable mixed and inclusive communities.”
Kensington then made a second application with very few changes-for 570 houses, down from 640-and withdrew its appeal on the back of the second application. To many of us at the time, that seemed a curious, smoke-and-mirrors exercise, which was one reason why I wrote to the chief planning officer on 9 July making exactly those points. At the same time, the council said that it had made major changes in its core strategy, which turned out not to be the case. In my letter, I said that the new proposal was
“essentially a cosmetic exercise and…will have…very little effect in lessening the negative congestion, service use and environmental and other impacts”.
I said that nowhere did the application address alternative scenarios for the Moss, to provide substantial employment for the area, such as developing a nature reserve, eco-tourism, and other green business initiatives. I pointed out that it would do nothing to support the housing market restructuring and renewal that Blackpool council, under the regional spatial strategy, had signed up to, nor to renew, refurbish or bring housing space in the town back into use. The regional spatial strategy plan says that local authorities should maximise reuse of vacant and unused buildings.
It seemed that the council wanted to move the goalposts, and a detailed executive report of 15 July to the cabinet executive left the overall direction of travel unchanged. There was no broad consultation with people in the area, and no comprehensive rethink, which Councillor Jackson and other opposition councillors had asked for in the March 2009 debate. A proposal by the opposition for further consultation on the core strategy was blocked by the ruling group. On the back of that, on 15 July I wrote to the leader of the council again querying what the strategy was designed to do. I talked about the lack of a proper in-area bid, and said that the report had not taken any account of the new environmental and local carbon requirements that the Government would demand in housing strategies, let alone new proposals. I also said that any genuinely thoughtful review, which this was asked to be, would have addressed issues such as the revival of allotments, eco-tourism and a nature reserve that might bring new employment to the Moss and to Blackpool’s outskirts.
The only response I received to my letter to the leader of the council, after waiting months for a detailed reply, arrived only two or three weeks ago but, curiously, was dated 4 August, and dealt only peripherally with my letter. It included the words:
“It is true that a Hub development would meet wider housing needs and relieve pressures in other parts of Fylde Borough”.
In other words, the strategy was focused more on the needs of Fylde borough than those of people in Blackpool.
At that point, fate took a hand. The sudden and sad death of the councillor for Stanley ward, which includes Marton Moss, precipitated a by-election in August. Inevitably, the council’s position on Kensington and the future of Marton Moss became a key issue. However, few were prepared for the spectacular stream of revelations during the last five days of the campaign. My local newspaper, the Blackpool Gazette, broke the story that Kensington Developments had given two donations of £5,000 to Blackpool, South conservative association, one in July 2008 and the other in May 2009, just before its second application went in and the council revised its core strategy. The headlines that followed in the Blackpool Gazette, speak for themselves: “The Tories and the Tainted Cash,” “Tories defend cash gift,” “Now it is another £5,000″ and “Tories agree to repay £10,000 to developers.”
The planning chair stepped down from considering the future of the Moss because he was also its councillor. There were allegations that the Conservative candidate at the by-election had known about the donations and done nothing, and the north-west Conservative agent, who carried out an internal investigation, said that the money had been earmarked for the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate’s election fund. The leader of the council, who said he was furious about the matter and demanded the return of the money, then demanded a letter from his councillors saying that they knew nothing about the donations. It was signed by 21 councillors, but six have not signed it. Since then, the deputy leader and other councillors have been referred to the Standards Board, and the latest headline in the Blackpool Gazette on Saturday 31 October stated, “Deputy leader in cash gift probe.” It is perhaps not surprising that on the back of that controversy and the continued objections, the Government office for the north-west wrote to the council on 16 September saying that the Secretary of State was directing the council not to grant permission for Kensington’s application without special authorisation and reference.
I want us to remain focused on the real issues of policy, and to emphasise the key issues. Blackpool’s regeneration is a key issue for everyone in the town, and we should be looking positively for ways to take it forward. That is why I have repeatedly urged the council to engage positively with an alternative agenda to their obsession with building on the periphery, why I raised the issues with the then Minister with responsibility for housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), in the spring, and why I wrote to the chair of the Homes and Communities Agency, Bob Kerslake.
The Moss campaigners recognise that a strategy for the area must be linked to employment and skills overall. In a note on the council’s core strategy, Angelia Hinds
and her colleagues say: “Absolutely nothing has been done about attracting employment opportunities. Have any proposals been put forward to suggest how this will be done or will the whole area become a dormitory town? The proximity to the M55 will encourage residents of the new village to travel to Preston and Manchester, rather than go to the centre of Blackpool. The prospects then for the inner town are not good.”
Blackpool and Marton Moss need a coherent strategy that works with the grain of Government policy, the regional spatial strategy and the growth point. I ask again why Blackpool council has not turned to its partners, especially Fylde, to consider what they can do to take up some of the slack.
Kensington is still stonewalling on these issues. In its latest letter to Blackpool council, its property consultants brushed aside residents’ complaints, stating that
“with regard to comments of local residents, generally I do not consider it is the role of applicants to respond…we stand by the contents of our Environmental Statement.”
Ultimately, this is about sustainability and coherence. It is about not narrow nimbyism, but coherent strategy planning that recognises that Blackpool’s needs can be met only with a sustainable programme for the centre. We need the dynamic twin-track approach of major, practical, cost-efficient brownfield development that can attract more HCA and private sector funding, and an imaginative new deal for Marton Moss.
The people of Blackpool and the Moss know that. Let me give the last word to some of my constituents who have contacted me. One said:
“I don’t think the infrastructure is sufficient to cope…I am worried about the wildlife and who is going to buy all the houses.”
Another said:
“There’s enough derelict and empty housing within Blackpool that could be redeveloped rather than use this beautiful nature environment.”
Another said:
“I agree…with the points…raised on the state of the land-it is one big bog.”
Another said:
“The key to regenerating Blackpool is to redevelop eyesores and dilapidated buildings…once greenfield land is developed it is lost forever.”
Finally, Shirley Earnshaw of Midgeland road said:
“As a resident of Marton Moss for over 30 years I am appalled at the idea of the proposed development-we have a moral duty to protect the environment for future generations.”
That is what the people of Blackpool and Marton Moss are saying. I can only hope that Kensington Developments and Blackpool council will listen to them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Ian Austin):
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on securing the debate and raising this important issue, which I know is of great interest to many of his constituents. It was fascinating to listen to what he had to say. I must confess that when I was taken to Blackpool as a child, we drove in and out and did not get to stop in Marton Moss and see all the great things in the area that he told us about, so I feel that my childhood was lacking in comparison to his.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who takes a very keen interest in this issue and has contributed to the debate. Both my hon. Friends work tirelessly and effectively for their constituencies and are great champions of and for Blackpool, speaking up for the people whom they represent. I am sure that the work that they are doing on this issue will be noticed by those people. I would be very pleased if the local council could work as closely as possible with both my hon. Friends on these and other matters.
However, I must say at the outset-I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand this-that I can make no direct comment on the current planning application, because there is a possibility of that being called in for decision by the Secretary of State, and pronouncement on it now would prejudice the Secretary of State’s decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South read out the results of the local paper’s investigations. It should be congratulated on the work that it is doing in the area. However, it is pretty clear that there are other investigations and issues affecting this case that make it an even more sensitive issue.
I would like to clarify the Government’s position on housing. Clearly, the long-term demand for housing is rising. The 2008 regional spatial strategy for the north-west increased the average annual requirement for new houses in the region from 12,790 a year to 23,111. That was based on independent research commissioned by the North West regional assembly. It attracted remarkably little controversy at the public examination. Blackpool’s share of that housing allocation amounts on average to 444 homes a year. The overall housing estimates and allocations to individual local authorities were accepted by the vast majority of authorities without disagreement.
However, it is important to remember that RSSs do not go into site-specific detail and it is up to local planning authorities to decide where to locate the housing development allocated to them in the RSS. Authorities should do that through their local development frameworks. That will not only ensure plan-led development as intended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, but that local communities are fully consulted on both the need for and the siting of development in the area. Blackpool is working on a new LDF core strategy that will provide a framework for identifying sites for new housing development.
The increase in housing requirements in the north-west reflects an increased need for housing in the country as a whole. For decades, there has been a mismatch between supply and demand for new homes, leading to significant problems of affordability, particularly on parts of the Fylde coast, where housing is out of reach for those on low incomes. The downturn has significantly impacted on house prices and the delivery of housing, but falling house prices have not solved the affordability problem. On the contrary, mortgage rationing and larger deposit requirements have made it harder to buy a home. At the same time, demographic pressures continue to build, with the latest projections showing that the number of households in England is likely to grow by about 250,000 a year. That underlines the urgent need to achieve a step change in housing supply.
It also needs to be borne in mind that Blackpool council decided, as we heard, to be part of the central Lancashire and Blackpool growth point. The purpose of growth points is to provide additional housing over and above the requirements in the RSS. The 2008 programme of development proposed a 32 per cent. uplift above RSS housing levels across the growth point as a whole and a 16 per cent. uplift in Blackpool. The programme of development proposes new housing on a number of urban sites, including the North and South Beach regeneration areas, Talbot Gateway, Squires Gate and Blackpool and The Fylde college, as well as parts of Marton Moss and Whyndyke Farm. However, the Government have always made it clear that any housing proposals in a growth point must be tested through the planning system in the normal way and that the growth point mechanism is not a short cut.
The Government have taken quick and decisive action in responding to the challenges facing the house building industry, to keep the industry moving and protect jobs. More than £7.5 billion is being invested over this year and the next to deliver 112,000 affordable homes. That includes the funding announced on 29 June as part of Building Britain’s Future, whereby over this year and the next, another £1.5 billion will be invested to provide an extra 20,000 new affordable homes, of which 13,000 will be for social rent. That is good news for families in housing need, and it is estimated that 45,000 additional jobs will be created in the construction industry and related industries over the three-year construction period. It will enable local authorities to build 3,000 additional homes over the next two years-a fourfold expansion of the scheme announced in the Budget. Like my hon. Friends, I urge the council, registered social landlords and developers in Blackpool to take advantage of the extra money that the Government have made available to give the local development industry a shot in the arm.
Once development is back on track, it is the job of Blackpool council to decide where the requirement for additional housing should be met. In working on its new LDF core strategy, the council must decide on the appropriate balance between urban brownfield sites and new greenfield sites. The Government have made it clear to local planning authorities that they should normally use previously developed land first. Neither the council nor the Government should give up on regenerating Blackpool’s inner area as an alternative to additional greenfield development.
The council is discussing with the Homes and Communities Agency a proposed £35 million package for new housing in the Tyldesley road area of Blackpool. It is also discussing another scheme for the conversion of houses in multiple occupation into apartments. Blackpool faces its own unique housing challenges in its inner area, arising in particular from the high numbers of HMOs and the numbers of vulnerable people whom they attract. The council is working on improving the quality of private landlord management practices and the quality of housing on offer. The Government are working on improving the town’s economic base through the regional development agency and the development corporation.
While Blackpool council is considering the pattern of long-term development, I am aware that Kensington has submitted an outline planning application to build 584 houses, with associated parking, village green and so on, on part of Marton Moss. My hon. Friend will understand that, as I said, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the planning application. The council has already been directed to refer the application to the Secretary of State, should it be minded to approve it, as it could raise issues of more than local importance. It will then be for the Secretary of State to decide whether to call in the application or to allow the council to proceed to determine it. It is important, therefore, that the Secretary of State be seen to be carrying out his planning responsibilities impartially, and I cannot prejudge the case.
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue about the future of Marton Moss. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood are doing a superb job as first-class MPs in speaking up for their constituents and the communities that they serve.
BACK PATTING ALL ROUND ME THINKS !
loading...
I’ve just read all of that (wink!), ‘first class MP speaking up for the constituents’ what dope were they smoking when they came up with that tripe.
loading...
more like first class wanker!
loading...
Just had a lateral thought:-
If planning “was” opened up on the Moss would that open the gates for additional low cost housing scheme’s once the precidence is set.
Allowing Blackpool Coastal Housing to expand the area without the pain of objection. ?
I beleive is a commitment that they must provide additional housing.
loading...
I thought affordable housing was part of the Kensington application anyway.
loading...
[...] of pics of David Cameron, tiny Conservative logo well below the fold and an oblique reference to Kensingtongate). The Lib Dems also remain conspicious by their [...]
I read with interest the debate at number #9.
May I please point out http://www.blackpool.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1254BD7F-EE13-4890-A8EB-CABDF54EF5EB/0/Populationv2.pdf. Section 5 clearly shows a declining population trend in Blackpool, consistently lagging the North West region and the UK as a whole.
National Statistics population growth estimates have been continuously undershot in Blackpool, with no evidence of any change in trend.
New housing developments should therefore be put into the context of this continuing relative decline: until Blackpool can show a turnaround in its fortunes new housing development should be concentrated on improving existing housing stock, redevelopment, and improving local affordability.
Semi-rural greenfield sites should not be needlessly destroyed for the profit of the Few; it would do nothing to improve the town either in terms of affordability or desirability.
loading...
[...] to shift in his direction and the local Tory, Cllr Ron Bell, has found himself involved in a messy donations scandal. Well-liked Lib Dem Doreen Holt gets above 6,000 votes, BNP drops back from its 2005 total [...]