ASHWELLS AND THE NEW GOVERNMENT PLANNING POLICY
The planning status of the proposed Ashwells development has hardly changed since outline consent was granted on 12 March 2020. The Council, as owner of the site, commenced a formal procurement process in mid-2022 by inviting several developers to submit bids for the design and construction, which resulted in two competing bids being selected at the end of August 2022, and concluding in March 2023 with the selection of Hill Group as the Council’s preferred development partner.
Hill Group brought their team to a public exhibition in the Village Hall in September 2023, and then on 29 November held consultations on their initial proposals with Councillors, and separately with the P&TGRS and nearby residents, at which Hill announced their intention to start construction in the autumn of 2024. This has been delayed partly due to issues concerning the gas main, which required a rethink about how to bring in the new access road from Cock Lane, resulting in a design (which we have not seen) that is said to incorporate a traffic calming feature, and requires technical approval by the Highways Dept. When in July, Miles Green enquired about progress, he was told “we are not yet able to provide an update”. This lack of communication contrasts with Hill Group’s much appreciated one-to-one consultations with neighbouring residents very soon after they were selected as developer.
All this begs the question of how serious Hill Group currently is about Ashwells. Not that any of us is in a hurry to see work start, but until Cock Lane has been widened to accommodate the new access road, and until site enabling works involving the diversion of utility services have been completed, and until all Reserved Matters applications have been approved, construction work on the houses cannot commence. Nor can development begin until proposals for the provision of affordable housing, custom build and self-build, has been approved, in the form of a S106 legal agreement, as stipulated in the Council’s 12 March 2020 planning decision letter.
Turning to the reforms in planning legislation proposed by the Labour government, there is nothing new in this that would necessarily impact on the current masterplan, or the design of the houses. However, the reforms place a greater emphasis on affordability than had previously been the case. The outline consent deals only with total numbers on the Ashwells site, and is silent on the actual numbers of affordable homes, presumably relying on Buckinghamshire’s generic requirement for these, with targets ranging from 25% to 48% of the total number of homes to be built.
‘Affordability’ is something which, ostensibly, the proposed new planning policy is meant to address. To effectively tackle the shortage of affordable housing in Buckinghamshire is clearly a significant challenge. High land values mean there is a shortage of suitable modestly priced sites available for building, making it difficult to supply of a meaningful number of truly affordable homes which are near to employment and amenities. The affordability of rural housing for working households has been deepening for the last two or three decades. National data on housing affordability points to a particular challenge facing villages in rural and semi-rural areas, such as P&TG. Also, the ‘working-from-home’ phenomenon, combined with the appeal of living in an area of outstanding natural beauty, has opened up our local housing market to a wider spectrum of entrants, potentially creating inequality in the affordability of local housing stock, and runs the risk of creating an island of gentrification. This attractiveness of an enhanced quality of living environment, combined with the scarcity of land supply for housing, has stimulated an escalation in house prices which exponentially become more affordable for outside buyers with assets already rooted in property and with higher salaried occupations, when pitted against rural wage earners, potentially creating a socio-economic mismatch and consequential inequalities in housing affordability.
Early indications by the Council’s Head of Special Projects, Charles Brocklehurst, was that of the 109 planned houses on the Ashwells site, 33 would be ‘discount market sale’ properties, but after the award of the development to Hill Group, these have been changed to shared-ownership. But there has been no detail provided about the affordability range of these, only that the development would consist of detached and semi-detached houses. The inclusion of rented homes as part of the ‘affordability’ provision, has been circumvented by linking Ashwells with a town centre site in Bellfield Road (behind Morrison’s supermarket), also to be designed and built by Hill. There is some logic in this, by creating lower-cost homes (ie. flats) closer to public transport and employment opportunities. However, in my opinion, this could be to the detriment of the Ashwells site, by limiting the number of lower cost homes to be included in the development itself, particularly if these could be reserved for people with local connections. The Council’s housing strategy ought to be flexible enough to require a range of homes which satisfy the needs of the local community, whilst at the same time obtaining the best price from the developer – the two should not be mutually exclusive. It is also worth noting that in its Housing Strategy 2024-2029, Buckinghamshire Council states as one of its key priorities that it will work proactively to ensure that the planning process accelerates delivery of affordable housing, and will explore opportunities for the Council to deliver more housing using where possible Council-owned land.
What kind of development are we to expect? What benefits will it bring? The village didn’t ask for this development, but it’s now enshrined in the legally-binding Local Plan for High Wycombe. The question therefore is not whether this can be reversed, but how we can make it the best it can be, and crucially, how it will enhance the make-up of our housing stock. Front and centre of the decision-making on housing mix should be to give local people a better chance of acquiring an affordable home in the area. Miles Green has had a conversation with the planners over the definition of ‘Qualifying Persons’ in connection with Gomm Valley, without much encouragement, but I think this needs to be raised again with regard to Ashwells.
It almost goes without saying that Ashwells should not simply feed a market dominated by those wanting to leave their urban locations for a more rural and lower cost housing market. Of course, much of the appeal of P&TG is its vibrant mix of inhabitants, its stand-alone village character, and its surrounding gorgeous countryside. It is axiomatic that benefits are to be gained by sustaining and enhancing this through the diversity of a broad range of house typologies and tenures. Any new housing development has the potential to shift the balance between up-market homes, and homes that are aimed at – and affordable by – those brought up here or who have strong local connections. Some of these ‘working people’ will have decent incomes, but are still unable to raise enough cash for a deposit. It has to be acknowledged, nevertheless, that the Ashwells project must be commercially viable, and that developers are typically driven by the achievement of the highest price, so as to maximise their profits. There is nothing fundamentally wrong in recognising profit as a primary commercial objective, but this has to be balanced by an underlying commitment to making a meaningful contribution to serve the best interests local community.
Population growth can be a force for good, or it can bring pressures to bear on local infrastructure and services. Getting the balance right should be at the heart of the Labour’s proposed reform of planning policy. The approach set out by the new Government has generally been well received by a range of organisations involved in residential planning, and by the housebuilding industry across the board. Muyiwa Oki, President of the RIBA commented: “Much greater emphasis needs to be placed on design quality because, fundamentally, a poorly-designed, unattractive, unsustainable home serves nobody, not least future generations. As architects, we now stand ready to act as a critical friend to government, to make sure we get these reforms right, to enable the design and delivery of the next generation of homes our country so desperately needs.”
It’s likely that Hill’s architects have already completed their scheme design – but we’ve not yet seen much other than generic prototypes of the houses. Notwithstanding the credentials of Hill and their design team, their proposals will still need to be subjected to close scrutiny, and the planners asked to refuse the Reserved Matters applications if they do not meet the high expectations of the local community. All the more reason that there is serious public participation, involving the community as a whole, and not just those directly affected by the development.
There has been some welcome progress on issues which had been of concern, such as the re-routing of Pathway FP74 at back of Sandpits Lane, and it is understood that the status of the copse is now not likely to be an issue. But there are several important issues left unresolved from the meetings with Hill in November 2023: ● design of school crossing at Cock Lane car park ● Church Road/New Road junction realignment ● New Road chicanes ● confirmation of energy efficiency design standards to be adopted in design of houses ● parking standards ● details of partnership agreement between Hill Group and a Registered Provider.
If there is anything to be learned from the proposed planning policy reforms, it is that if nothing else, it raises the profile of housing provision, both nationwide and in the context of small rural and semi-rural communities like ours. In the case of Gomm Valley, there is more at stake, in the sense that in the event of success by Taylor Wimpey in their recent appeal, a worrying precedent could be set, by providing other volume housebuilders with licence to build a mediocre product. This is why the P&TG community should give Hill Group’s proposals for Ashwells close scrutiny. And that is the purpose of this exercise – to raise awareness of the imminent changes in our local built environment, and encourage participation in the community response when the time comes.
Ken Cooke
August 2024