Local authorities just months ago made a deal that lets the developer out of any future commitments to build or support affordable housing. This ordinance has triggered significant controversy between council members. That application would have developed 300 acres of forested land north of North Trade Road. Importantly, in making this decision, it justified this departure again only on the grounds of financial sustainability.
During the village council meeting, Councillor John Barnes said he was unwilling to grant approval for the application. He acknowledged the challenges faced in the appeal process and stated, “We would certainly lose on appeal. So I must say, I move with great reluctance – approval.” His comments illustrate the challenges in navigating development interests with community needs.
Mike Hughes, the authority’s head of planning, corroborated concerns about the scheme’s viability. At the same time, he noted that what officials disputed were some of the numbers shown. He continued, “I say that none of us want to be in this position. This hesitance from officials, however, belies a deeper sickness in the planning framework that might only be cured with larger policy changes.
Independent Councillor Kathryn Field went on the attack against the current patchwork scheme. She argued it allows developers to benefit at the expense of residents. She urged her fellow council members to advocate for a change in legislation, stating, “I would hope this council would write to central government and lobby in the strongest terms for changes to this ridiculous scheme, whereby we are guaranteeing private developers the right to make a profit at the expense of our residents.” Her comments echo a growing frustration among council members about the lack of fairness embedded in our present development policy.
Field further expressed her dismay at the proceedings, saying, “This happens time and time and time again. What I am is absolutely appalled that it has got this far.” Her concerns reflect a growing apprehension among some council members. They are frustrated that local communities’ interests are being pushed aside to benefit private companies’ bottom lines.
Yet the application has created quite a stir as it relates to affordable housing. It begs big questions about how we determine financial viability in the planning decision making process. Those developer-local council dynamics will likely come under further examination as the negotiations move on.
Parker Dann has been approached for comment regarding this contentious decision and its implications for future developments in the area.
