Published by Michael Kilpatrick, 30 Royston Road, Whittlesford. Tel: 01223 833062
on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, c/o Timothy Stone, 4 Church Lane, Whittlesford.
The views expressed are those of the candidate and party, not of the service provider. Website hosted by Pipex

Political Links

Liberal Democrats S Cambs Lib Dems Stop Hanley Grange

Personal links

Harmony in Harlem Michael's Ellington jazz orchestra Unknown Ellington compositions never heard before! Eating a cobra Michael eats a snake in Indonesia! Snow daleks Photos of Michael's snow daleks

Planning and Development

South Cambridgeshire faces many problems and challenges with regard to planning and development. There is a shortage of housing nationally and especially in areas of economic growth such as Cambridgeshire. The county's plans for new communities are based on developments north of Cambridge and growth in and around the city such as the southern fringe (accompanied by the new Addenbrooke's access road). Ths District and County are already struggling to deal with the enormous number of houses planned. The Liberal Democrats aim to staff the District Planning Department to a level that will deliver a quality service and cope with the increased pressure.

Sustainable communities will be encouraged by better ensuring that developers fully meet their affordable homes obligations and provide a mix of house sizes to meet local needs. New houses will have to meet high standards of energy efficiency and sustainability whilst being in character and appropriate for the location. Planning fees for "green" improvements to homes will be reviewed, whilst more rigorous and fair enforcement of planning will be met by an increase in the number of enforcement officers.

Liberal Democrat policy is to challenge government imposition of unsuitable development.

How should South Cambs be developed?

When local residents tackle issues such as the proposed Hanley Grange development there has to be an acknowledgement that new housing is required in and around Cambridge. Simply being a NIMBY isn't an answer, and I believe the communities of rural South Cambs have to act not just to oppose large-scale developments but to take pre-emptive steps to create their own positive, constructive plans for development. We have to show the government that we can do better than they can. We can win by fighting positively, not negatively!

To wrong-foot the government's unworkable plans for new towns, some rural villages might have to expand. But it's very obvious that there is no way that 8,000 houses can be accommodated without doubling the size of every single village in the southern half of the S Cambs district.

Any changes to our villages should be driven by the villages themselves and the District Council, not higher authorities, and the housing targets must be on a realistic scale.

I believe that the majority of developments can only be sustainable and workable if they take place within existing settlements and around existing transport infrastructure in a distributed and rational manner, and on a small scale.

High density redevelopment

I believe that large- or medium-scale developments should not be in the hands of a single developer. A typical British village is a happy mish-mash of houses of many designs from many different centuries, all evolving slowly over time. Modern developments can swamp villages with large swathes of identi-kit orange-box houses with little variation of character, yielding a faceless environment. I want to see planning regulations that insist on greater diversity and the enforcement of the use of varied materials for external finish, rendering or painting of houses within any one development.

Thriplow (excluding Heathfield) is a small village yet seems to have had more than its fair share of development in the form of the demolition of existing buildings to make way for new properties, often two on the site of the original. Some residents are not happy with this.

The increase in density resulting from such development can destroy the character of a town or village and the loss of substantial gardens pushes wildlife away from human habitations. This change is especially accute in some of our cities. I believe that there are strong environmental and social arguments against garden-stealing for redevelopment.

An older, "tired" property in need of renovation may often be more affordable than its modern replacement. Therefore, the needless destruction of old houses can reduce access to affordable housing.

Environmentally, the cost of retaining an inefficient, older property is not necessary offset by the act of wanton destruction and rebuilding purely for the sake of something newer and "greener", when the old property is still perfectly serviceable. It's rather like the dreaded Guided Bus. What is the environmental impact of destroying a perfectly serviceable railway to replace it with several thousand tons of concrete in the form of a busyway? It's wanton destruction.

Larger gardens and lower density housing implies that a larger overall area is required for housing. I believe this is a good thing, not a bad thing, provided the growth occurs where it is really needed. Gardens can contain more biodiversity than arable famrland, for example. Provided that the UK retains sufficient farmland for its food needs, I oppose the high-density targets set for most modern housing. The green belt should be something we find within our urban environment, not just outside it.