Having seen a lot of the housing plans going through rather speedily of late, I have spotted some very familiar things about them and questionable aspects as to whether they're as beneficial as certain bodies make out.
The Chatsworth Gardens Development
I mentioned this on an earlier post, but after reading a couple of articles from the Visitor Newspaper here and here, made me all the more suspicious.
Quote from The Visitor (2015): PlaceFirst said the scheme will target lower-income families but
potential tenants will need to provide references and pass credit
checks, and sign a neighbourhood agreement to reward good behaviour.
The thing is the above sounds very familiar to what happened with the old Poulton Market site many years back. It's almost like those with the power feel the need to impress these statements on us in order to make us think it to be true and nothing to worry about. Yet, hearing that, I just get suspicious that things are not as they are said to be....
So the question is how is this going to be an improvement to an area already suffering from many problems?
Is more rented accommodation really the best solution here?
Would owner occupier accommodation not be better? That is, if people owned their own homes on an individual basis, then they might be more likely to take care of them and bring some positive individuality to the area.
It's difficult to say what the original intentions of the Chatsworth Gardens development was (rented accommodation, owner occupied or mixed) without evidence, but it would appear there was much more emphasis on green space. Apart from some 'creative' rear areas, the current development shows little of this.
The big question should be then, what exactly is this development intended to achieve and will it be a positive addition to the area?
It seems odd that many housing developments in this area appear to be concentrating on only the rented market and only housing. So much more could be made of this area but it appears to never be encouraged.
For example. Why the need to ALWAYS fill a site with housing? Why not leisure, entertainment, parkland, arts, art and craft studios, offices or some work related businesses, sports etc. You can't have JUST housing and nothing else to support it or in reach of it. Otherwise, what are people supposed to do and/or engage their minds in? All that housing crammed into one area with little to offer leisure or work wise seems somewhat negative to me and therefore not right.
The King Street Housing Development
Now this is another interesting one. The intention of the development seemed to spring up somewhat quickly and it got past planning in a very short space of time.
Details of this development can be found on this page. Including is the highlighting of council documents that state the housing is to be 100% affordable and be operated by a registered social housing provider. And yet, according to The Visitor I seem to remember one councillor stating that they'd not seen anything to suggest that. Me wonders if either the Visitor is mistaken, someone hasn't actually 'read' the documents or someone is fibbing...
Land Next to Globe Arena
This is the latest piece of land in the area that is to be filled with housing it seems. Again with 100% affordable housing. I was always under the impression that affordable housing was supposed to be provided mixed in with other housing types not wholly consisting of. So considering the amount being provided (90 units) in isolation from other housing ownership types, wouldn't a mix be better thereby allowing various ownership type residents to mix rather than being in isolation from each other?
The designs seem to be very basic apart from some end block features. Even as a new development its overall feel seems to be one of negativity designed to make people feel miserable. Can't we have development that is beautiful, nice and bright with positive bright and radiant elements and features for a change, rather than dark and bland?
Again I would ask if this development is the best use for the site. Would something job related not be better, or may be leisure or sports; considering the close proximity of the football ground?
Also, it is claimed it is in a good site for public transport. Apart from bus route that is restricted in terms of end destination, it offers little in providing other transport links. Despite being a railway line running past the site there are no suggestions for a station to be provided there. This, and better bus routes, should be HIGH priority before any development takes place.
So here we have a development that is greatly cut off through lack of decent public transport, possibly not the right type of development and a development of that could have negative effects on its potential residents.
Is it the right development the area?
Answer: Doubtful
Does it contribute positively both to the area and provide a positive atmostphere for potential residents?
Answer: again, doubtful.
Is the public transport in the area suitable for new development?
Answer: Highly unlikely considering the points discussed above.
Will it get passed for planning despite all this?
Answer: Knowing the current district council, probably very likely...
Let us see what the outcome of this is before drawing too many conclusions.
