The county’s 2023 household projection puts Rivermont at 11,300 additional households by 2040. The district’s local plan, adopted in 2017, assumes 4,100. Both documents are public. Neither has ever been read against the other in a committee room.

Why the gap matters now

Because of lead times. Most infrastructure can be built when it is needed. Three things cannot:

• A primary school takes six years from decision to first intake.
• Drainage capacity on the Kelvin catchment requires a scheme with a decade of design and consent ahead of it.
• Bus service uplift needs a franchise negotiation that opens once every five years, and the next window is 2028.

On the county projection, the district is 840 primary places short by 2034. A decision taken in 2028 arrives in 2034. A decision taken in 2031 does not.

What the plan review can fix

The local plan review is due this year, and adopting a revised household figure does not require a fresh examination. So the first change is free: use the county’s number.

The second is the developer contribution calculation. The district’s viability assessments still use 2016 land values, which is the main reason contributions here run about 40% below the regional average. Updating them is an officer decision, not a policy one.

The third is a published rolling five-year infrastructure schedule set against consented development, updated quarterly. That one costs officer time and is the one that makes the other two hard to quietly reverse.

The uncomfortable part

There is a real constituency in this district for the position that Rivermont should stay the size it is. I understand it and I do not share it, but more to the point, the projection does not care.

7,400 homes already have planning permission. They are coming. The only decision left is whether the school places arrive before the children or after them.