How will #FutureMoleValley plans respond to social and environmental concerns?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With only a few days left to respond to the #FutureMoleValley consultation closing on 23rd March 2020, what do we know about the proposed development sites? What kinds of social and environmental issues do they surface?

Map of proposed site allocations for #FutureMoleValley plans from Mole Valley District Council.

Over the past few weeks the Mole Valley District Council has been running local events to present and gather feedback from residents about proposed #FutureMoleValley development plans which could shape the next 15 years across the region. As they say on the website, feedback from people who live in Mole Valley is important for these plans to succeed:

“This consultation is vital — we want to hear your views on whether you support or oppose the Plan, and the reasons for doing so. Whatever the outcome, the Council will listen to your views and will take them fully into account in making a final decision. If the result of the consultation is that development should not take place on some of the sites, the Council must provide valid evidence to the Inspector to justify such a position, if we are to argue our case successfully. That is why we need your views and why this consultation is so important. Please tell us what you think and we will work together with you to try to provide a Local Plan that is acceptable to local people, the Council and the Government.”  —  Margaret Cooksey, Cabinet Member for Planning

From the housing crisis to the climate emergency

There are a lot of different interests playing out around these plans — and many competing agendas around how space in Mole Valley is used, owned and developed:

  • Homeless charities and many other community groups affirm that there is a housing crisis in the UK and the need for more affordable homes.
  • Big development companies are interested in purchasing new sites to invest in to keep profits rolling in.
  • New and improved public facilities and local services are needed in the face of decades of funding cuts and austerity policies which have seen a 21% reduction in spending over the past decade.
  • Environmental groups and local residents are concerned about the effects of development plans on nature spots and the incursion of new homes into green belt land.
  • Amidst broader concerns about catastrophic climate change the district council also declared a climate emergency and committed to taking steps in Mole Valley.

The #FutureMoleValley plans are partly a local government response to central government pledges to build more homes. Recent estimates suggest that over 345,000 new homes per year are needed in the UK. As homelessness charity Crisis simply puts it, “the supply of housing has not been keeping up with demand”. Shelter, the National Campaign for Homeless People, say that “1.2 million people are on the waiting list for social housing, yet just 5,000 new social homes were built last year”.

Yet according to government watchdogs, successive Conservative governments have failed to meet housing targets and have broken promises to build starter homes. As the chair of the Public Accounts Committee said in November 2019, “despite setting aside over £2bn to build 60,000 new starter homes, none were built”.

Responding to the housing crisis will involve more than just building more homes. A 2017 briefing paper from the Chartered Institute of Housing argues that “while supply is of critical importance, so is the rather more neglected issue of affordability”. In other words, tackling the housing crisis is not simply a matter of building new homes, but increasing the availability of affordable homes that are accessible to those in need.

“While the government has sold enough public land for developers to build 131,000 homes, only 2.6% of those homes will be for social rent.” — New Economics Foundation

There are also questions about how new homes are provided. As can be seen from the graph below, new house building is currently dominated by the private sector. As a 2016 select committee report says: “Local authorities and housing associations need to make a much bigger contribution to housebuilding if it is to reach required levels”. This includes through supporting and investing in local authorities to provide more affordable homes.

Graph on house building 1923–2018 from 'Tackling the under-supply of housing in England' report, House of Commons library.

There are other bolder and more systemic responses to addressing the housing crisis beyond selling public land to private developers. As a 2018 report from the New Economics Foundation argues, this could include investing in public and community ownership models, closing loopholes which enable developers to “evade affordable housebuilding”, land reform, tax changes and other measures.

“The public land sale should be stopped, and the land instead used to form the basis for a People’s Land Bank, to be used strategically in partnership with communities to meet their needs, primarily affordable housing” — New Economics Foundation

There are also ongoing concerns around the implications of new developments for the environment, local habitats, biodiversity and climate change, which are all acknowledged in the plans. This includes protecting the Green Belt, the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and local green spaces.

“Protect all of our precious countryside and open spaces, our Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty from inappropriate development, urban sprawl and noise pollution, so that our county remains attractive and tranquil for future generations” — “Manifesto for Surrey”, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Surrey Branch

A section of the report also explores how the plans might play a role in responding to the climate emergency. However in their recent response to the plans the Dorking Climate Emergency group argues that “the business-as-usual planning and building standards of 7000 more properties is incompatible with Declaring a Climate Emergency”.

What do the consultation documents say?

So how do the #FutureMoleValley plans measure up against these various concerns? Here are a few of the things we have been able to ascertain by looking through the consultation documents, proposed site allocations and various responses to these:

  • 72% of sites mention that affordable housing will be incorporated — but critical questions remain as to the composition of affordable housing within the proposed developments, details of which are not provided.
  • 88% of the proposed sites are either on or adjacent to green belt land** according to the provided plans and only 12% are not. 29% are fully on green belt land; 4% are partially on green belt land and 54% are adjacent to green belt land.
  • The total area of proposed developments is 275.6 hectares. 85% of this falls across 7 locations: Bookham (14.15%), Beare Green (12.92%), Dorking (12.66%), Ashtead (12.19%), Leatherhead (12.15%) and Headley (12.12%). The remaining 15% falls across 11 locations with less than 5% each.
  • There are a total of 44 proposed gypsy and traveller pitches, of which 14 are in Leatherhead (31.8%), 11 are in Dorking (25.0%), 6 are in Ashtead (13.6%) 5 are in Betchworth (11.4%), 4 are in Bookham (9.1%), 2 are in Hookwood (4.5%) and 2 are in Beare Green (4.5%).
  • There are a number of citizen-led initiatives to protect several of the sites from further development, such as SA45 (the Poor’s Allotments on Barnett Wood Lane in Leatherhead), SA48 (green belt land adjacent to the riverside Common Meadow in Leatherhead) and SA05/SA06 (sites adjacent to and overlapping with green belt land in Beare Green). If you know of other initiatives to add here, please do let us know at hellomole@protonmail.com.

Following are some charts and graphs that aim to enable comparison and give a perspective across the different proposed sites. You can find the data that we gathered from the consultation documents here: http://bit.ly/future-mole-valley-data

NOTE: There is contestation over the green belt status over some of the sites. The plans show some sites without green belt marking on the map (e.g. SA48, SA52), whereas residents and community groups have highlighted that these are misclassified. Graphs, tables and data below have been updated accordingly and we have contacted the council for clarification.

Interactive visualisations exploring data from the plans can be found here:

If you or your community would like to share your perspective on the #FutureMoleValley plans you can write to hellomole@protonmail.com.

Further reading and resources