Studied by 0 peopleDo you think that the proposed Tudeley Village garden settlement development should go ahead? Use evidence from the resource booklet and your own understanding to explain your answer.
Although there are some social and economic benefits to the proposed development, the shortcomings of the proposal are more significant. I therefore think that the Tudeley Village development should not go ahead.
negative environmental impacts
One of the main reasons to reject the proposed development is centred around the negative environmental impacts that the development could have on the local area. For example, as stated in Figure 3, ‘the development…will turn an area of open countryside into an urban landscape’. Although Figure 3 highlights some of the ways in which the development has been planned to be more environmentally sustainable, such as the protection of ‘ancient woodland and existing valuable habitats’, the landscape will still be covered in more impermeable, man-made surfaces, changing the drainage basin processes and reducing the amount of green, open space in the area. This has implications for local ecosystems, as well as natural drainage processes and air quality, reducing the extent to which it can be considered a positive, sustainable development.
affordability of the housing provision
Another reason to reject the proposed development is centred around the affordability of the housing provision. In Figures 2 and 3, ‘affordable housing’ is highlighted as a way in which the development will be more sustainable from an economic and social perspective. However, as Figure 2 notes, only a ‘proportion’ of the housing will be affordable. In the UK, there are many definitions of ‘affordable housing’ – one of these states that the housing will be rented at up to 80% of the market rental value. This would be problematic in the context of Kent, within Southeast England, as this region experiences the second highest average house prices in England, £320,454 – according to Figure 1. Even if these houses were rented at 80% of the market rate, this would still be ‘too expensive for local people’ (Figure 3). It is also unclear as to what proportion of the housing would be available at this reduced cost.
sustainability of the proposed development
Finally, there are concerns regarding the sustainability of the proposed development both economically and environmentally. From an economic perspective, there are concerns that Tudeley Village could become ‘another commuter settlement’ owing to one of its selling points being the railway link connecting it to both Tonbridge and London. This would reduce the sustainability of the development if people have to travel beyond the settlement for work. It could also prevent people wishing to work locally, within Tudeley, from being able to afford to live in the development if they are priced out of the market by those working in London. Environmentally, the public transport facilities that are highlighted in Figures 2 and 3 will not be built until 68% of the homes have been built. This could mean decades without the transport facilities that would make the development more sustainable in the long term. Similarly, the plans relating to waste management are very vague. According to the Tunbridge Wells ‘Pre-Submission Local Plan’ in Figure 3, ‘district heating and modern waste collection measures will be considered’ but there is not definite commitment to ensuring sustainable methods are utilised. This undermines the extent to which the development can be considered sustainable as not all of the sustainable settlement characteristics are being met.
final statement
The proposed development should therefore not go ahead in my opinion.
Note
Flashcard