SE Northumberland - the biggest housing estate in England?

[Keith Reeder]

While trying to find out exactly what's going on with the planned concreting-over of the land north of Arcot Hall/Arcot pond, I did a Google search for "Arcot Consortium", the bunch trying to get their hands on the land to "develop" it...

I almost wish I hadn't.

I found a PDF document by the Arcot Consortium http://tinyurl.com/aacb3 (http://tinyurl.com/a5cc7) (broken link fixed) which - apparently - spells out the future of South East Northumberland from a housing/development point of view - and I'm utterly appalled by what I read.

It is evidently the case that Government-introduced(?) targets on new housing mean Northumberland must build 700 new dwellings a year between 2002 and 2006, rising to 800 a year between 2006 and 2016.

And - in effect - because the bits of Northumberland north of Morpeth are really nice and under-developed, they're going to be left that way, and 70% of all new housing built in Northumberland from now until 2016 is going to be shoe-horned into SE Northumberland - specifically, around Cramlington, Blyth and Ashington.

It goes on to suggest that it will be "challenging" to meet the requirement, by 2008, to build 60% of new housing on previously developed land...

Basically, this document confirms to me that our part of the world is going to become a "sink" of housing developments, much (most?) of which will be on what little green space we have left, in order that people further north who already have more countryside available to them on their doorsteps than they know what to with, can keep it.

I'm ****ing disgusted by this - both the idea of it, and the fact that it must all have been agreed behind closed doors.

Clearly we have no right to expect the half-decent quality of life which the presence of "countryside" would provide - SE Northumberland is basically being sold down the river so that developers can pile more concrete and bricks onto the few patches of green we have left.

Over my dead body...

So I decided to post this up on BF - I bet that I'm not the only one who didn't know our quality of life is being sacrificed like this, and many of you will be affected - and I'm not going to take this lying down.

You'll notice too that North Tyneside is subject to the same fate: what do you reckon this is likely to mean for the likes of Gosforth Park?

[brianfm]

Hello Keith

I have much sympathy for what you say. I live in North Tyneside and have watched over recent years much green land being sold for housing and business development. I am not one to suggest we should refuse the chance of business bringing employment into the area and of course we continue to need housing but it is the knowledge that every bit of spare land is sold off and eaten up that annoys me. IMHO there have been years of misuse of council funds and now every chance is taken to recoup finance into the council coffers. I speak about North Tyneside here only as I am not so sure about Northumberland.

As for Gosforth Park, well! I am a member of the Natural History Society of Northumbria which manages the reserve in Gosforth Park really well. But as it seems to be more and more surrounded by roads , light industry and housing I can only see it likely to become a small refuge for wildlife in future, where once it had links to other areas. I have heard that that there are plans to put a reed bed into Killingworth lake, an area which can attract some good birdlife. A good idea. Then I also here that thought is being given to using the lake for rowing boats. An attempt to keep everyone happy maybe but one that will bring little benefit to the wildlife I think!

[Keith Reeder]

I'm a member of the Nat Hist Soc too, Brian, and I share your view that it'll end up as an isolated "garden" in a sea of concrete and bricks.

A typical example of what we're faced with is the "Great North Park".

Variously described by developers Taylor Woodrow as a "£600 million greenfield site" with "80 hectares of commercial development and... plans for 2,500 energy efficient homes set in 442 hectares of parkland" (522 hectares in total, which will not be "parkland" at all, of course).

Most telling of all it is described as "a state-of-the-art urban extension to the city".

Development started in 2001, as far as I know only one company (Sage) has taken up residence!

Yet all the infrastructure is in place to support an entire site's worth of industry and housing - which means that 522 hectares (that's nearly 1300 acres!) of farm and woodland is lost to nature for ever more, in an area that couldn't afford to lose it in the first place.

We're not alone in being baffled by the paucity of logic in decisions like these either:

http://housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t7742-50.html

Yet - with all of this land at the Great North Park effectively "going begging", the idiots making the decisions continue to sanction further pointless, unneccessary greenfield developments...

Seriously - take a good look at the link above and then tell me where the market is for these 800 new houses a year.

And how many commercial/industrial developments up here are currently under utilised?

All of them!

Yet more and more get built...

[matt green]

it really makes me sad to see so much green land gobbled for housing developements.they say that there is a shortage of housing in this country which to some degree my be correct,i think we are becoming over populated,the rate some people are procreating you would think the human race was in danger of extiction.stop having babys, matt

[Keith Reeder]

Hi Matt,

I've no doubt that the housing shortage in the South East is real enough, but building too many houses in the North East ain't going to fix it...

[Gill Osborne]

...i think we are becoming over populated,the rate some people are procreating you would think the human race was in danger of extiction.stop having babys, matt

Too blooming right - especially as the ones who are producing kids left, right and centre are mainly the ones who are too lazy to get off their backsides and get a job!!!

[Keith Reeder]

Yep, long-term that's the solution.

But back to now... I intend to find out whether one man (with a bit of help, I hope!) can make a difference: any thoughts about how?

[rayl]

Keith, working on the principle that its always easier to pick other peoples brains, I would try and find some action groups that have beem in similar circumstances. Also contact the CRE, they may even provide you with this information.

Ray

[matt green]

Yep, long-term that's the solution.

But back to now... I intend to find out whether one man (with a bit of help, I hope!) can make a difference: any thoughts about how?
i guess most people would say write to the local MP but i dont think you would achieve much[probably away on golfing holiday anyway].you could research the area for anything that has protection status[great crested newts have worked wonders in the past].also many people don't hear of these things until the diggers arrive so pass the gen around to provoke as much stink as possible.when caught early enough many developers have pulled out of building schemes due to local rejections.at the end of the day though if these plans are part of govenment housing targets then you may have limited options than if you were up against individuel local developers.

[Keith Reeder]

Thank Ray, good idea to see what's already been done - I'm a great fan of not reinventing the wheel.

Matt, at least part of the areas directly affected by the Arcot Consortium plans does in fact carry a protected/special interest designation (I'd have to double-check which one) and "MH68" (Mark) is looking into the implications of that.

I think that mandates from the centre of government are driving these plans, but - working in central government myself - I know that plans can be changed.

I'm also about to write to Northumberland, Blyth Valley and Wansbeck councils under the FoI Act to get them to release the background material to these plans - market research, justifications for the planned numbers of new homes, costs, etc. and also getting them to tell me precisely what mechanisms exist to challenge these plans (not just at Arcot, but in the whole of SE Northumberland) and how to exploit these mechanisms.

They're under a statutory duty not only to provide information, but to provide direct assistance to me in getting what I need, if there's any "problem" with the nature of my request.

There's also been a lot of activity up here recently against a planned opencast which would impact on land very close to the Arcot development - I intend to get that lobby group on board with this too, because it looks like they're winning the opencast battle, and - to be truthful - this redevelopment plan is a million times worse than an opencast because the effect will be permanent.

I'd have the opencast any day, myself - I've seen what comes of that kind of land use, and (as Stevie Evans mentions on the Durham thread) you can often end up with a better environmental result than what the low grade farmland subject to the mining provided in the first place.