The local elections take place this coming Thursday, and we will see candidates from the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP standing in each of the 3 Billericay Wards. We sent each candidate three questions and their answers may help you decide which way to vote on Thursday.
We received a common response from all Conservative and UkIP candidates as well as a response from Tom Scanlan the Labour candidate for Billericay East.
We received a common response from all Conservative and UkIP candidates as well as a response from Tom Scanlan the Labour candidate for Billericay East.
Question 1: Housing
In 2016 the Council proposed 1,700 houses on Billericay Green Belt and local people produced a large, high-quality response calling for the Council to exercise its right to use Green belt protection as a reason to build fewer homes.
The response has instead been to increase the level of building on our Green Belt by nearly 80%.
Do you think this was an appropriate response?
The response has instead been to increase the level of building on our Green Belt by nearly 80%.
Do you think this was an appropriate response?
| Conservative Response Firstly, on your question about the increased housing numbers in Green Belt, the short answer to this is ‘No’. The Labour/UKIP Coalition’s decision to dramatically increase the number of houses being built on Billericay’s Green Belt was clearly not an appropriate response, neither to the clear message from Billericay residents to the consultation nor to recent statements from ministers, including the Prime Minister, underscoring Green Belt protections in the Local Plan process. Therefore, Conservatives voted against the Draft Local Plan at the Full Council meeting in March. Unfortunately, as you know, whilst the Conservatives are the largest political grouping on the Council, we are out-voted by a combination of UKIP, Labour and Independents. One of the last acts of the outgoing Conservative Administration was to commission a review of Green Belt policies in the emerging Local Plan, with the express purpose of establishing what steps could be taken to minimise harm and bring down the numbers. But, after taking administration alongside Labour (who were committed to building in Billericay), UKIP’s Linda Allport-Hodge so gutted the review of its intended purpose, it was ultimately scrapped. She then presided over the huge increase in housing on Green Belt that you mentioned, most of it having been redirected into Billericay and away from her own seat in Basildon. Unless there is a Conservative administration after 3rd May, we see little prospect of the plan being changed unless it fails the Regulation 19 examination. If elected, Conservative councillors will do all they can to ensure resident’s views are considered by the Planning Inspectorate and will continue to oppose excessive Green Belt developments in Billericay. | Tom Scanlan (Labour, Billericay East) Response Building on Green Belt is always one of the last resorts when it comes to new housing. The natural environment increases quality of life, provides spaces for children to play in and generally improves the health of those that use it. However far too often areas of Green Belt are just left in a state that is of no use to anyone. It is key to transform these areas into spaces that the public can use either through additional housing or more accessible leisure areas. By utilising these green spaces we reduce the potential impact of compulsory purchasing existing residential land and housing. The funds generated from the new housing can also be re-invested into the remaining green spaces to improve them and make them more accessible for this and future generations. It is key any new development should have the minimum impact on existing inhabitants of the area, at times this unfortunately means having to give up green spaces. | UKIP Response BAG made its case well and the number should have been reduced at that time in 2016. We would then be in a much better position. In 2016 I was a candidate for UKIP in Langdon Hills and we pledged to reduce the housing target for the borough from 15,260 to around 10,000 if we were elected. Such numbers would still be perfectly adequate for the scale of growth required in this area. We were unsuccessful in that we only had 10 seats out of 42 following that polling day. I lost my own bid to join the council by 2 votes. The Conservatives kept control through the cabinet system. At that time the Local Plan was already very late and housing targets were rising because of the high net migration numbers. Earlier in 2014 the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing was only 12,900 over 20 years, yet the council consulted on a Core Strategy that said we had to build 16,000. They then delayed and by 2016 the OAN had reached 15,260 but as BAG rightly pointed out, there was still an opportunity to set a lower target using green belt as a constraint. In summer 2016 the ONS population projections for the UK were updated giving higher numbers and it became clear that the OAN would rise again when reviewed. The council should have stuck to its schedule to publish the plan before that happened. Instead they launched an unnecessary public consultation at the end of 2016 to consider new housing sites. Although it was not mentioned in any public meetings at the time, we now know that the council also commissioned a report that year for a South West Billericay Development Framework. The report - which was only published recently - shows that after some investigations, meetings were held in February 2017 to discuss the options. The conclusion was that a larger development of 2000 homes was preferred. Essex County Council claimed that this many houses were needed to pay for infrastructure. A map showing the layout almost as it finally appeared in the 2018 Local Plan was dated 10 May 2017 in the report. That was of course the time when the opposition parties took control by changing the council’s system of governance to replace the cabinet with committees. The Conservatives had always said that it was necessary to meet the full OAN by building on green belt, but at the last minute when they knew they were losing control of the council they asked for a report to review it. This review was cancelled a few weeks later on a unanimous committee decision. It would have delayed the Local Plan by yet another six months with nothing being revealed that was not already known. The OAN was recalculated by consultants engaged by Thames Gateway South Essex just as the new administration took over. As predicted, it increased to a new high of 19,460 homes. Castle Point council had tried to reduce its housing target but its Local Plan was thrown out by the planning inspectorate because of failures over the “Duty to Cooperate” rule. This made it clear that if Basildon wanted to reduce its housing target it would have to spend time talking to neighbouring councils. That would not have been possible within the revised schedule. Then the last nail was hammered home by the Secretary of State. His threat to intervene if we let the schedule slip further meant that it was time to cut the best deal possible with what the council had already prepared. It is clear that council officers push hard for a plan that meets OAN in full. I think they are driven by the need for the New Homes Bonus money to plug the council’s funding gap, but they can’t admit it because that is not a sound planning reason. Their justifications for “exceptional circumstances” to build on green belt are subjective. If I had been on the council I would have challenged them, but I don’t know if it could have made a difference. Councillors were in a very difficult position imposed by central government against local community wishes. The Local Plan that they approved has a land supply for 18,180 homes - 7% less than OAN. This target is believed to be as low as could be risked in the circumstances. New legislation that will almost certainly be brought in this summer means that the alternative would be a plan that meets the full need for Basildon Borough plus thousands of additional homes that our neighbours such as Southend don’t have room for. We were also asked by the Mayor of London if we could help with the unmet need of the GLA and that was rebuffed. I know a lot of people were disappointed that UKIP could not do more, but there is only so much that can be done with 24% of the council seats, when the government is doing everything in its power to stop you, including changing the law and threatening to take everything out of your hands if you don’t do what they say. Any attempt to stand our ground would only have put residents in a worse position. Now we have to work to persuade the planning inspectorate that the number of houses must be reduced rather than increased when the Local Plan is submitted for examination in public. |
Question 2: Local Transport Infrastructure
At peak times Billericay’s roads struggle badly.
- Do you share our view that some of the highways mitigation, notably the ‘Relief Road’ will be counter-productive?
- We often hear the claim that infrastructure will come before development – can you ensure that happens and if so how?
| Conservative Response Conservatives have always underscored that developments need to ensure all supporting community infrastructure is both planned and, more importantly, provided. Planning officers considered any proposed development in the Frith Wood area would unduly affect the Sun Corner gyratory road system and, as such, mitigation would be required. We considered the cost of providing a relief road would most likely make development in this area unviable. It is our understanding, however, that developers lobbied Lab/UKIP, who agreed to increase house numbers and density to pay for the relief road. Conservatives reject this approach. Moreover, we are not convinced it will alleviate the problems that could arise at Sun Corner. Regarding infrastructure more generally, all too often developers resist councils’ demands to provide vital infrastructure and try to minimise their exposure and wriggle out of Section 106 agreements as soon as the ink is dry on the planning permission. The Conservative Government have taken some steps to address this and the new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which is charged prior to development commencing, gives us hope this might improve things and ensure money for infrastructure is stumped up ahead of time. We do have a concern, however. New-builds in the borough attract different CIL contributions in different areas, according to the land value. Unsurprisingly, the CIL in Billericay is up to eight times that achieved elsewhere in the borough. Money accrued, however, does not have to be spent on the area the housing is being built. It is up to the Council to compile a list of infrastructure projects on which CIL funding is to be spent. Any continuation of a Labour-led council will almost certainly see CIL money funnelled into vanity projects in their heartlands, aided and abetted by UKIP and Independents, whilst neglecting vital infrastructure to support new homes in Billericay. Ultimately, the only way to ensure the prudent economic management of Basildon Council, secure our fair share of investment and deliver a brighter future for Billericay, is to vote Conservative on 3rd May. | Tom Scanlan (Labour, Billericay East) Response The relief road is designed to be just that, a relief to the current traffic levels. If there is evidence that it will be counterproductive then this needs to be put forward whilst the plan is in its planning stage and given the appropriate amount of scrutiny. The road through the Bluebell Wood is already a contentious issue and it must function as planned. Our local infrastructure is a massive priority. From potholes to congestion at times our roads have become unbearable. This is why the infrastructure elements of the local plan have been put at the forefront. The Community Infrastructure Levy will ensure that all new housing will have made its contribution to the local area it will become apart of. Too many years funding for local infrastructure has been held back. This has created an even larger burden for the local council tax payers of the area and the proposed levy will help alleviate this. | UKIP Response The need for a relief road is based on a circular argument that more houses are needed to fund a road to support more houses. This comes from Essex County Council and we have seen them use it elsewhere. Meanwhile they are proposing to spend huge sums of our money building a new A120 to support new development further North. I am not sure that “counter-productive” is the right description. If so much new housing is to be built it is better described as inadequate. A cursory look on Google maps will reveal just how poorly Billericay is served for roads compared to other towns of a similar size. It sits at the midpoint of a quadrilateral defined by the M25, A127, A12 and A130, but there are no good quality roads providing access to any of them without going through other congested towns. The West of Billericay in particular is surrounded by an area of single track roads that often become impassable when it rains. If you leave via the A129 you have to pass through Hutton with no easy access to the A12. Other routes in and out are worse. With so many new houses these roads will be congested for longer periods. At the very least the relief road should connect to a good quality road leading directly out to the A12, but of course that would do further harm to the green belt. South Essex has formed a new alliance of six borough councils plus Essex County Council to control a new South Essex Vision 2050 project. This will lobby government and other sources for infrastructure funding. Basildon Council under the political direction of UKIP has included every possible measure in the Local Plan to ensure that infrastructure will come before development. However, there is only so much that can be done at this level. Infrastructure provision is the responsibility of other bodies such as Essex County Council and the NHS. New delivery tests being added to planning legislation by the government mean that if development does not meet targets, councils will be punished. They will be forced to release more land for development and will lose their control of planning. There is little public information about how South Essex Vision 2050 is being conducted but we can read between the lines. I am sure the project will be used as a pilot for the new “statement of common ground.” This is emerging planning policy which will force a group of councils to agree a combined development strategy. The Conservative led councils of South Essex will want to help their government set an example for other councils to follow. That will mean high levels of housing development for low levels of infrastructure. We currently expect to see a Joint Strategy for South Essex by 2020. Basildon Councillors will be able to influence this but the other councils are dominated by Conservative control. It is national policy of the Conservative party to build large numbers of houses to accommodate a population swelled by uncontrolled immigration. Infrastructure constraints, green belt and the wishes of local communities are not going to be allowed to get in the way of that. Whatever they may say, Conservative Councillors are going to help implement that policy for their government. Changing that won’t be easy. It will require representative Councillors from Basildon who know what they are talking about, and who are not tied to the government’s agenda. I would like to take on that challenge. Some people will respond to my answers by saying we need more houses to solve the housing crisis - to give young people somewhere to live. Yes, but I agree with BAG that 10,000 homes is enough for this area. The government also has to address the demand side of the housing market and examine why houses are being bought by investors to rent. |
Question 3: Commuter Infrastructure
The railways and the A127 are not coping with existing traffic and the government recently challenged SE Essex authorities to reduce pollution on the A127.
Do you share our view that these strategic limiters make SE Essex an unsuitable place for large scale growth?
Do you share our view that these strategic limiters make SE Essex an unsuitable place for large scale growth?
| <No response from Conservative candidate> | Tom Scanlan (Labour, Billericay East) Response I think large scale growth is a subjective term. Growth has the potential to be a force for good to the local area. Local businesses both small and large and the people who use them all benefit from growth. Increased funding generated from an larger population and thriving businesses leads to more investment in services and the local area. We are bound by major roads in SE Essex. Between the M25, A12, A127, A13 and A130 we are enclosed by major roads on all sides. High pollution is a local problem that is not caused by local residents. An increase in population within the borough will not impact the pollution caused by these major roads. The local governments are being blamed for a problem that is occurring nationally. Locally discussions have been had regarding congestion charges akin to Central London. This will not work locally, we cannot turn the A127 into a toll road in a naive attempt to reduce emissions this will just harm local business and local road users. There are small steps we can take, converting the Fortune of War half roundabout into a straight road with slip roads will prevent the constant deceleration and acceleration and increase emissions associated. A 50mph speed restriction from Laindon to Wickford will ease some of the congestion. There are small steps we can take before we enact drastic measures. I get to personally enjoy the delights of rush hour travel every morning on the trains. They are massively over subscribed and decades of under investment has resulted in services that are not fit for purpose. The services have gotten progressively worse, and yet substantially more expensive, for years and this is in part from more users coming from further east. Traditionally people have moved further east when seeking a home as there is limited availability within the borough this has just compounded the problem. The solution is more investment and potentially nationalisation of train lines as foreign companies will always prioritise profits over the quality of its services. | UKIP Response Road and rail infrastructure is woefully inadequate in South Essex. The A127 is a case in point. Other main roads like the A12 further North are classified as trunk roads and funded by the government. The A127 was de-trunked in 1998. Since then it has been up to Essex County Council to fund any improvements. They have done very little. It is now a low quality dual carriageway supporting a level of traffic that would normally justify a motorway. There was recently a public consultation on improvements to the Fairglen interchange, but it was clear that the funding allocated was being used only to ensure the fast passage to traffic passing through on the A130, not the A127. You only have to look at the Fortune of War roundabout to realise how neglected the A127 is through Basildon. Basildon Council asked for widening of the A127 and remaining two-lane stretches of the A13, but this would require nine figure sums which would have to come from government funding. Even if there was any prospect of that, there are physical constraints to widening the A127 through Basildon. Any major plans would take at least ten years to implement. Roads are not the only infrastructure constraint. Rail capacity is limited. Some improvements are possible with automatic signalling but there are physical limitations. Workers are being displaced from London to commute back from here, so this will be a significant issue. I think my biggest worry is the hospitals. My own FOI requests have revealed the increasing incidence of black alerts at the Basildon and Southend hospitals. This winter they were on critical alert for extended periods. This is a level they should never reach. It is getting worse due to poor finances. Instead of increasing capacity with more funding, we see them looking to combine services to save money and Orsett Hospital is closing to be sold off for housing development. The whole of South Essex is being targeted for a 20% increase in population over 20 years. The nation’s population may increase by up to 10% depending on immigration policy but we are seen as the most affordable region to take the population being displaced out of London. In the 2017 budget the Secretary of State asked for £50 billion to fund infrastructure to support the housing boom. This was really a modest figure against what is really required. He got just a few billion. So far not one single penny of it has been offered to South Essex except for projects like the Thames Crossing which are to help the national flow of traffic rather than local problems. |
We would like to thank the candidates who have taken the trouble to reply to us, and we hope their replies are of use to the public in deciding how to vote on Thursday 3rd May.
