Questions over cost of strategy ‘fiasco’ (From This is Hampshire)

Questions over cost of strategy ‘fiasco’

8:30am Friday 3rd July 2009 in

• Skip social links
• Print
• Email
• Comments(1)

TAXPAYERS are likely to be saddled with an unexpected bill in the wake of the Government’s rejection of Test Valley’s core strategy document outlining future housing development.

Romsey’s Tadburn ward member, Mark Cooper, warned the council that the document, which includes provision for more than 3,000 new homes in the town and its environs, was flawed before it was submitted to the Government and thrown out in May. Next Wednesday, the authority’s cabinet will vote on the strategy’s withdrawal and officers will have to go back to the drawing board to make changes acceptable to the government appointed planning inspector, Jill Kingaby, who declared the document unsound.

Mr Cooper has described the process as a “planning fiasco” and is querying why it cost far less than originally budgeted for to produce the core strategy document.

He said the declared costs of producing the plan were £23,800 in 2006-2007 (against an original estimate of £246,970) and £140,500 in 2007-2008 (original estimate £335,000).

“Will TVBC tell us why the actual costs were much less than the estimated cost and is the production of a cheap core strategy the reason why it has been found to be unsound?” asked Mr Cooper. Besides describing the council’s blueprint for the future as ‘unsound’ the planning inspector criticised the document’s layout, content and lack of vision. The inspector also accused borough officers of “faulty” research when compiling the document which includes 1,600 new homes at Whitenap, 800 at Abbotswood and 400 at Hoe Lane, in North Baddesley.

Mr Cooper said the core strategy was “doomed” the moment the borough council chose to ignore the Government Office for the South East’s (GOSE) comments last year on the document’s “shortcomings”.

He claimed that it was left to him to circulate GOSE’s criticisms to other councillors, including the borough’s deputy leader, Martin Hatley.

“The fact that it has taken the borough council so long to realise the mess the core strategy is in and agree to withdraw it, is a surprise and represents a series of corporate denials on the borough’s part.”

Explaining why the borough council was going to redraft the core strategy, Mr Hatley, the cabinet’s planning and transport spokesman, said: “Having considered the inspector’s comments and taken a detailed look at all the options available to the council, we feel that this is the best way to proceed.

“Whilst we were very disappointed with the inspector’s findings, this option will allow us to review and address the concerns raised.”

If members back the recommendations council chiefs will ask the secretary of state with withdraw the document.

‘If the council accepts the recommendation we can review the concerns raised by the inspector and produce a revised document for consultation later this year,’ added Mr Hatley.

Further consultations with the public and other statutory bodies will follow once revised plans have been put in place by TVCB.