At County Council yesterday I said, ” A current frustration for Newton Abbot, but one which must be common across Devon, is the failure to have suitable basic infrastructure in place prior to the construction of housing developments. As an example, in Newton Abbot we currently have considerable house building progressing, but without a footpath along a significant length of main road (the Ashburton Road) requiring pedestrians, including primary school children, to walk to and from school along a busy “A” road. This is nothing short of madness. Similarly, a new roundabout has appeared on the same main road without any signage or appropriate lighting. New road junctions are being constructed with no warning signs provided. Speed limits are currently not legal. Much, if not all, of this will eventually be resolved to most peoples satisfaction, perhaps by the end of the year, by which time some will have been living under these conditions for at least 2 years. I could mention numerous other deficiencies….eg lack of broadband. We could all probably agree that these infrastructure features should ideally be in place before homes are occupied. So, why aren’t they? Because either Section 106 or CIL money is withheld until a certain amount of progress with the development has been made, and only then are these vital infrastructure needs provided.
Could a reserve of money not be made available to undertake at least the critical works and then, when cash is available, put back in “the pot” for future developments elsewhere? While this proposal would require a relatively small initial investment, it need never become an on – going drain on finances as it would always be topped up by funding which is currently associated with the development, but not available at the start of the programme.
Lives are being put at risk by the current highly unsatisfactory methodology. What is to stop DCC Place Committee recommending exploration of this proposal? It would make a huge beneficial impact on Devon residents lives and give confidence to purchasers of new properties that their lives wont be blighted for many months by inadequate infrastructure. This would make a really positive contribution. Can this committee agree to recommend?”
The committee, despite the Chairman’s reluctance to allow debate, did not set up the “pot” but did agree to take the idea forward with further consideration, probably after the May elections. So at least the idea remains alive and I regard that as at least a partial victory.