Note from Parish COuncil Planning Meeting, 20th Feb

A number of us went to the Parish Council Meeting on Wednesday night.

Before they discussed this development, there was a long discussion about sewerage problems in the village, and the apparent resistance of Southern Water to cooperate with the parish council to find solutions to the flooding problems in the village. Clearly any further development in the village, particularly one of the size proposed on this site will only make matters worst. We need to ensure that the Parish Council take the issue of Sewerage very seriously when considering this application. This doesn’t just affect those living near the proposed development, but it is those who live the other side of the village who will reap the benefits of having their homes flooded with raw sewerage. As a village community we cannot allow development by to have such a devastating impact on others.

From the discussions it appears that some years ago the Parish Council was told that the sewerage system would be upgraded before the Hormer Crescent developments would be started. Clearly this has not happened and the impact for those living in Spierbridge Road cannot be ignored.

When the item was discussed more fully, it was clear that the Parish Council are not united in their views of this development. A number of points were raised and discussed:

By far the greater part of the debate was about traffic and Sewerage.


Traffic

The impact of this development on the surrounding roads, from Fern Road to Meadowside is clearly a concern for some members of the parish council, particularly the use of these roads as a rat run when traffic is heavy in the High Street. There is concern about the predicted traffic movement levels. From the documentation I have read, this does not take into account the traffic movements from the public parking or the traffic movements of service vehicles. A Parish Council member also raised the issue of additional movement of lorries through the village as they service the shops that the new residents will use. They discussed the dilemma of widening the road and the removal of street parking and the inevitable consequence of speeding cars. Clearly this would not actually solve the problems but would instead substitute one problem for a greater one. There is also the issue that in many places on these roads, there is not the physical space on either side of the road to widen them. They also discussed the lack of adequate paths for those in wheelchairs or invalid carriages. There was quite a debate about Browns Lane. This road is currently unadopted by the local council, and any attempt by them to maintain it may indicate liability on their part to continue to do so. The Parish Council are unsure who owns this land and a further attempt will be made to find out. Naturally any improvements to this road may well result in the increased speed of vehicles using it. On Council member recalled that before the 1970s Browns Lane was blocked off and was not a through road.

Member of the public commented on the increase in the levels of street parking in recent years and was concerned that this development would only make things worst.


Sewerage

The discussions on this point very much mirrored the issues raised earlier in the meeting.


Healthcare Provision

There were concerns that the village was already under resourced in terms of Doctors and Dentists


The Fairy Garden

One member, Anna, (apologies, but I didn’t hear her full name), commented that there had been discussions about moving the existing ironwork from the public garden area (from the greenhouses I presume) “Otherwise they will be smashed up”. Surely if members of the Parish Council believe that the public garden would be a target for vandalism, then it goes to show that elements of the plan are poorly considered. The issue of vandalism has been foreseen by the developers. The proposal is that the Fairy Garden is locked in the evening. Locked by who? At what times? How long before they “forget” to unlock it; the garden never gets opened; and over time custom and practice means that it no longer remains a public open space, but becomes part of an extended private garden?


Local Development Framework

The point was raised that the Local Development Framework (LDF) approved the development of 25 dwellings on this site, yet this proposal has something in the region of 40+. When the Parish Council were asked to comment on this, the reply was that this is just the way it is. This type of thing happens. Is this democracy in action? The LDF agrees one figure yet the District Council may well approve a development nearly double the size. Where will this all stop? Surely if the District Council have approved 25 dwellings, then 25 it should be! This high handed approach makes a mockery of the whole LDF Process. It is no wonder that ordinary residents are not engaged in local decision making bodies, if their views are run rough-shod over!

There was a view by some Parish Council Members, that now that the site is included in the LDF, then it is inevitable that the site will be developed, and that this development is preferable to a large social housing estate. This has to be a matter of opinion. Others might be of the view that for example 3 larger bungalows would be a better use of the land with a much reduced environmental impact.


The next Parish Council planning meeting is on 13 March at 7pm.


Garden Cottage

I understand that this is a tied cottage. It needs to be raised upfront that if the proposals are accepted, then the developers may make the case to demolish this property and further increase the number of dwellings. This would further increase the problems already highlighted.