Mangapps under threat - request for support

I rather think this will be a losing battle. There is a housing crisis in this country but nobody wants a new housing estate next door. Out-of-area objections carry no weight in planning matters and if the development is a part of the local development plan then it's a fait accompli . Even if it's kicked out this time, the developers will be back when planning restrictions are eased . A glance at google maps shows a lot of space around the site that is ripe for development. Being hemmed in by housing will be an increasing problem for many heritage railways and will very likely result in some having to reduce their activities or, in the worst case, close altogether.

 

There’s nothing to be lost by trying. Locally we have fought off a couple of intrusive developments. Mangapps is unique and worth saving, the small relics museum has a collection that York would die for.

 

If the development goes ahead. Which I hope it doesn't.
How long before the first noise complaint against the railway?
It wont matter who was there first.

 

It certainly benefits from the wide open spaces as can be seen in this video I shot just over a year ago:
Mangapps Railway Museum, 13th October 2021.

 

This is one rural scene that will be lost. The station building is from Laxfield the terminus of the Mid Suffolk Light Railway

 

I'd ban building on undeveloped land. Maldon though has/had a central government imposed target of - I think - 623 new homes a year for 20 years. I know the area only a little (my boss lived there) but if you are building, then building near a NR railway is better than away from it. Hopefully it would have a high % of affordable/social housing (it won't)

No it won't, that's English law

 

The actual wording of the application is 250 dwellings and 54 Units of Keyworker/NHS Accommodation.

 

What would you suggest as a viable alternative? The UK already has some of the least generously proportioned newbuilds in the developed world. Perhaps demolish semi-detached suburbia in favour of three, four of five storey buildings?

We've rural locations everywhere that many born into families which are more a part of the local scenery than the roads network who have no work and no prospect of anywhere affordable. Are they somehow disposable, whilst gentrification procedes apace, with incomers often economically inactive and playing little part in local life, beyond opposing any and all new development.

 

We've got town centres that are dying on their arses with boarded up retail units, which are surrounded by soulless estates two miles out of town with no facilities and which only work by continued reliance on cars. (Salisbury, look at me when I am talking to you ...) So I'd suggest a start could be made by sensitive redevelopment in town centres, with a shift of land use away from retail and back towards mixed use residential and leisure.

Tom

 

Mangapps itself could be attractive to developers ?

 

The thought had occurred to me

Around 15%. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) said at least 10% should be affordable, subject to some exceptions. It used to be higher, 30%?

I'd be more sympathetic if rural new build was going to (and staying) with locals.

I'd have a penal tax on Air BnB and the like.

Three, four of five storey buildings doesn't faze me, nor does increasing density in low density areas. We tend to have new developments of shoe box semi-detached and large numbers of 'executive' detacheds. Looking around Bath (other Georgian cities are available) shows next to none of these, you got 3 and 4 storey terraced town houses.

I'd up the % on affordables. 30% +. Maldon has 1000 on the waiting list, this development with 50 won't dent it.

I'd extend the bands upwards for council tax too.

I don't think 2* these 300 house developments a year on greenfield in Maldon to meet targets are sustainable.

The real benefit would be more people living outside the SE, reducing pressure.

Declaring an interest, I live in a 1999 detached house.

 

Unfortunately, "affordable" seems to translate to "add to BTL/AirBnB portfolio". And there are firms of lawyers out there whose sole function is to find loopholes to exploit so that the affordable housing doesn't get built.

 

Oh well, another one bites the dust.
You don't think they'll let the MHR keep 47-579 "James Nightall GC" and have 80078 do you?

They are lacking in engines ATM.

 

There's a lot to unpack there Tom. You're perfectly correct about town (and city) centres. The shift to an online economy effectively leaves precious little which can't be done from in front of a screen and clearly some serious rethink is needed. There are only so many small batch coffee roasters and nail bars needed per 100,000 of population.

It's a challenge and not one I'm aware is being met yet, here and across Europe/US. There might be some pointers with regard to planning considerations in several completely new developments in the UAE, but those will only point to how systems might be managed and emphatically aren't any proforma for how existing UK town centres ought to be handled .... for which, we need a serious conversation of a sort I'm unaware of anywhere.

What that doesn't address however is the issue, of villages effectively dying for want of basic facilities, or the wider problem in rural areas, of pricing local people out of their home communities ... unless we're just happy to say "tough biccies, that's the economy", in which case the inevitable backlash against selfish gentrification will be throughly well deserved.

I have a concern in the context of the discussion on our forum that whilst it's (naturally) biased towards heritage rail. I seem to be detecting some double standards here. The same folk justifying a zero development stance might want to revisit their own posts concerning facilities developments on our lines, lest we run the risk of "one rule for us, another for everyone else". That way lies NIMBYism. It's a tightrope we walk with everyone else.

Could I suggest if we're to continue chewing the fat on this one, we don't bury Mangapps but start a new thread in General Chat, to keep (all bar one of ) our moderators happy?

 

Could I just ask what the local plan says? If these site are designated in the local plan for housing - then the plans will be passed. If they are not in the plan then it is likely that the application will be turned down.

The time to object to sites being designated for housing is when the local plan is being developed not when the application is msde.

 

Maldon's Local Development Plans are here.

 

We are going through the housing development scenario at a business i help run, disposing of over 30 acres of land, under an enabling development case.
Couple of points, affordable housing is a number that can be negotiated with the local authority, we have it down to 5%, and hope to reduce it further, same as any section 106.
Why, it increases the top line of every other house, or, we build the affordable proportion away from the main estate, or buy out local landlords, and hand the housing to the local council.
The value of an "affordable house", is very close to £500,000, every house on our estate is below that value, up to 5 bedroom detached units.
The perceived value by central government of a "affordable house", is based on a home counties scenario, we benefit hugely from that.
Time for the locals, and supporters to get going, we have cast iron safety issues, that prevent another developer alongside us trying, those are the issues planners take notice of.

And first hand from the local MD of the national builder we are using, they expect the housing recession to end in February, and are on an aggressive land Aquisition trail, building their land banks up again, at low land values. Every house they build, they sell, and are open to other builder acquisitions as well. Housing market is extremely buoyant in his words.

 

Those thoughts are maybe for another thread? Kicking someone whilst they’re down springs to mind.

 

The dust hasn't even been created to be bitten yet - the railway isn't closing. There's a possibility that in a few years houses may be built close by that will chamnge the backdrop of the railway and potentially bring in some difficult neighbours. Not nothing, but certainly not the end of the railway yet.

Also, 80078 seems to mainly be based at the Mid Norfolk Railway which are even shorter on steam power than the Mid Hants (both operational and out of service) - why would the privately owned loco move to a completely different railway that is further from its owners base where it was overhauled?