As an elected representative of many of the existing areas of Thetford that Policy TH36 would seek to address, and as a resident of these areas since birth, I find the policy greatly offensive for its hypocrisy and I dismay at the continuing reluctance of Breckland Council to commit in any firm way to meaningful regeneration of the areas of Thetford that require such urgent attention. Areas after all, ranked within the top 10% most deprived in the UK.
My fear is that Thetford will grow to the North, the housing will of course be shiny and new, homes will be well insulated, many with renewable technologies. The inadequacy of our existing estates will be highlighted to a greater extent than they already are. I have no confidence that this policy has any realistic chance of helping to address this situation and preventing further decline of these areas.
Concerns about a two tier Thetford have already been expressed, the sustainable urban extension will only be sustainable within its own parameters, but what to me is crucial is how this development links with Thetford itself. That cohesion will ultimately determine the success or failure of this growth.
I’d like to outline a few recent examples that demonstrate why this policy needs to be far more robust than it is and demonstrate why it is that I am concerned about the policy’s lack of detail and commitment, to resolving the potential imbalance across the town.
The opening sentence in the policy speaks of infill / redevelopment – unfortunately, we have seen too much infill, and not enough redevelopment thus far, and I fear that this trend will continue. Car parking areas, garage forecourts and green spaces have been built over – increasing the housing density for areas that are recognised as having too many dwellings already.
I have seen more focus on the pursuit of new dwellings than sincere regeneration. What has taken place thus far has felt like a window dressing exercise, primarily for PR purposes.
The policy contradicts itself when talking about how improvements need to be sympathetic to the existing area, whilst also exhibiting high standards, facets that do not exist currently, and continue to be ignored and flouted by Breckland Council and others. What improvements that have taken place have come after constant effort by the local community who have grown weary and apathetic about the constant talk of action over the last 20 years, only for their hopes to be dashed.
I find particularly frustrating Section B of the policy regarding mixed tenure.
There was a new housing development that took place on the Barnham Cross estate, it in-filled land that was used as green open space and used by local youngsters, the new development created 66 new units – all for social rent, in an area with the highest percentage of social housing units in Thetford. This was despite the best efforts of the local community who campaigned for a mixed tenure development, with units available for sale, and shared ownership. Further, the units were only built to Code Level 3, and the six passive house units – those that were to be high quality, environmentally friendly homes, were even re-planned at the late stage back to a basic code 3.
Hardly the aforementioned mixed tenure, high quality development that meets local needs.
The policy also calls for a “preferably increased amount of play areas”, and recognises that already Thetford is deficient of play area space. Coupled with this deficit, we also endure the most appalling quality of play areas imaginable – with most sites failing the requirements laid down by ROSPA in terms of safety standards, and offering little play value to local families with a simply laughable availability of equipment. Breckland Council has long wanted to foist the play areas onto the Town Council, for a totally inadequate sum of money, which is why I find it particularly frustrating that the report mentions in section 25.13 about Breckland Council wanting to work to increase provision, whilst simultaneously threatening what scarce resource we already have.
The contradictions in the policy are further exacerbated by section 25.10 – indeed, the Thetford Academy will be relocated to the North of Thetford; a further kick in the teeth for those of us in the South. Parents that I represent will now have to send their children from one side of Thetford to the other for school, with no transport plans currently in place. A 6 mile walk each day for most children from areas in the South of Thetford. What is of further concern is that the community looks set to lose the building that is the current school site. This of course has a dual role, being of use to the school and of benefit to the wider community. Further, the swimming pool that is a part of the site looks set to be lost, disadvantaging junior school age children from this area who will now be unlikely to undertake swimming as part of the school curriculum given the distance that will need to be travelled.
If our existing estates are to be improved, and not forgotten, then the policy needs to be far more detailed and far more robust to ensure that those with the responsibility to support our communities actually do so, and that the broken promises and disappointment felt by so many in Thetford does not continue for another generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment