It cannot be an agreeable experience to have a strategic
plan subjected to public and external scrutiny and inspection, especially after
so much hard work has gone into its development.
It cannot be easy to balance the interests and needs
(present and future) of different stakeholders, landowners, developers, the
unemployed, the under-employed, the retired, part-time workers and young job-seekers,
the NIMBYs and environmentalists, the immigrants and emigrants (international
and internal).
Is it better to be cautious or over-optimistic in assessing
the country's or the county's rate of economic recovery? How can a planner be
sure that the numbers and data are reliable, that the evidence is robust, comprehensive and
up-to-date?
How about the soundness and objectivity of the assessment, or
judgement, of economic and social trends, levels of household debt and the sustainability of planned developments in the longer
term? What about changes in the housing market?
It sounds very scientific, a "Strategic Housing Market
Assessment". Can one claim to promote economic growth without prioritising
working-age households and affordable housing, employment opportunities and good
transport facilities?
Is it better to be realistic and pragmatic? I don't know, but it's certainly a good idea to be
transparent and democratic. An important meeting in these respects, whatever
the outcome of this complicated iterative planning process. I was glad to be able to participate, and to be exposed to all these pressing issues.
Update: This question concerning affordable housing at the Charles Street development (Phase 2) was also raised at the meeting.
Dorset workers struggle to earn living wage (Update)
Update: This question concerning affordable housing at the Charles Street development (Phase 2) was also raised at the meeting.
Dorset workers struggle to earn living wage (Update)
No comments:
Post a Comment