Post by rosegriffin on Mar 5, 2014 10:45:23 GMT
Madam, may I first clarify a verbal comment made yesterday. When you asked if the bridge at the end of the Pound Lane junction led us to the station I said “yes” thinking that you were referring to Basildon station. However, I later realised that the bridge you might have been asking about was the one my colleague Laura Watts commented on yesterday – Laura was referring to the weak bridge near Pitsea station which is the main commuter station for local residents.
Madam, in this summary I have sought not to reiterate all the reasons for retaining our green belt, and preventing urban sprawl, repeated time and again in the hundreds of letters of objection already submitted.Summing Up
When Mr. Acres the farmer who owned Little Chalvedon Hall died residents were relieved to hear that the new owners, Nottingham Council, had bought the site as a working farm as a long term investment for their pension fund. Indeed this was confirmed in writing by the Leader of Nottingham Council. What could be more sustainable than a working farm at a time when the UK imports more and more foreign imports? Great!!!
However, within 2 years – despite the site being in the middle of green belt a planning application was put in for 1300 houses, shops, offices and other premises. After strong objection we were told that the Appellant had listened to local concerns and had reduced the number of dwellings to 750 and that the Appellant would use the land which he wasn’t building on to provide green, ecological space. However, when residents tried to buy two of the fields as a conservation area, an offer which we thought couldn’t be refused as it would save the Appellant some costs in maintaining that green area – he turned us down as the fields had “hope value”. One of his expert witnesses has told us that his understanding of “hope value” is that the land might be available for development at a later date.
One of the Appellant’s team has told us that despite plonking a huge development in the middle of green belt that it would create more green space for us and would not do anything to reduce the urban sprawl between our village and Pitsea. We have been told that despite the fact we don’t want to lose our greenbelt that once the development is in place we WILL like it.
The Appellants have told us that despite this huge intrusion into a green belt area which hosts a number of wild species, including some protected species, that we would have an improved ecological environment.
Despite being told by a former local shopkeeper that 3 shops in Pound Lane had closed when the local Tesco’s opened the Appellant has told us that current residents WILL like the new shop and we WILL use it. The Appellants has told us time and time again that they know much better than we do what we really want. Well, what we really want is to keep our green belt.
We used to have 4 shops in Bowers Gifford but when Tesco’s opened 3 of these local shops closed. Another large shop in the area shop might well affect the profitability of our existing shop.
We told the Appellant that the local surgery had closed because residents prefer to use the medical centre in Pitsea. However, the Appellant has told us that we WILL prefer to use the proposed medical centre which intrudes on our green belt.
The Appellant has told us that we do not have the facilities we need and will provide us with a neighbourhood hub. Well, we have sufficient facilities at the Benbow which we have listed in our earlier objections.
The Appellant told us that the project would boost local economy by providing 207 construction jobs. But, the Appellant has not done his homework by researching the multi-million pound Bowers Gifford Sadlers Farm/A130 Improvement project. There has been a lot of publicity over the scheme which was almost 2 years late in delivery. The developer recruited zero local people. In fact, the manager in charge of the site was sacked for recruiting illegal immigrants. The workers who were employed lived in caravans on the site and the only boost to local economy was in theworkers purchase of foodstuffs.
The 2000 square meters (at least I think that was the final figure after some confusion) of Appellant’s proposed industrial premises would employ 73 permanent staff – but 750 new dwellings, most 2.5 storeys high would surely bring in a much larger number of incomers seeking employment. Furthermore, it would be discriminatory for the Appellant to seek to employ only people living on the new development. Bringing in workers from outside would only increase further the volume of traffic on minor roads.
So let us now turn to traffic. The 750 new dwellings plus the industrial area and the facilities in the village hub would increase the traffic by at least 1000 extra vehicles per day. The Appellant seeks to divert Pound Lane – our main thoroughfare around the new village hub which includes a zebra crossing for school children. The Appellant admitted to not being aware of our traveller community. WE have a traveller community within BG&NB and their trotting ponies would also have to use this diversion – slowing things down even more. Even so the Appellant insists on telling us that this diversion will improve the flow of traffic – the residents just don’t realise it.
On Wednesday the Appellant’s expert witness on transport told us that we had pavements along Pound Lane that were all 1.5m to 2m wide. Well our own measurements tell us that this is true in some places but in others the pavements are only 0.8 meters wide. We were told that we had pavements all along Pound Lane – well about half of Pound Lane has NO pavements at all and in some places not even a grass verge to walk on.
The Appellant admitted that the Pound Lane/A127 junction was unsuitable for heavy construction traffic but we were told that the experts would provide a solution and either use Burnt Mills Road or bring heavy construction traffic down Pound Lane from the A13 end. Madam, you saw Burnt Mills Road yesterday – a minor road with no pavements. Pound Lane is also a minor road which would find it difficult to cope with the volume of heavy construction traffic. We were surprised to say the least that no account whatsoever of the additional 200 to 300 lorries a day going to the new waste management site in Courtald Road had been included in the Transport Report. Nor had any account been taken of the additional traffic to be incurred when the new giant port in Corringham is opened. However, the Appellant was not phased by this potential huge increase in traffic and assured us that a solution could be found.
We queried the fact that the expert witness had used average data in his calculations of water runoff from the site in an area prone to flooding. We noticed that the “standard average annual rainfall” (SAAR) figures were based on rainfall between 1941 and 1970. We queried the fact that the computer software (Micro Drainage software) used gave a 24% lower run off rate than the well known Wallingford on-line tool. We were told that the experts know best.
We asked whether the Appellant’s application was untimely following a recent spate of flooding – some of the blame for which has been placed on unsuitable SUDS systems in clay soil and run off from the “improved” A130. We asked whether, in the circumstances, the proposed development was timely in view of the fact that the recently formed Flood Risk Action Group was investigating the number of recent floods with Essex County Council and other agencies....... the Appellants saw no reason to err on the side of caution and saw no reason why they should not push ahead with this development.
Madam, if the Appellants showed us a sheet of black paper I’m sure they would tell us it was white.
However, one thing that the Appellant has said that is true is that residents don’t generally like losing their greenbelt. On 5th February the Leader of our Council came to a public meeting to tell us more about the Council’s draft core strategy, which would take specifically chosen pieces of land, out of our greenbelt. The Resident’s Association had already communicated to residents, via our December and January newsletters, the areas within the North East Basildon Urban extension, which we could lose. On the evening of the public meeting I was worried that introducing Mr. Ball would be like throwing Daniel into the Lion’s Den but miraculously Mr. Ball came out unscathed – just like Daniel. One of the things we discussed at that public meeting was the desire by local people to have our own local plan.
On 26th February – this last Wednesday – council policy planning officers came to another public meeting to give further information on the draft core strategy. So you see we are taking this opportunity seriously.
We realise that a local plan would not give us control over the number of dwellings required but it would give us a measure of control over the design and quality and more importantly location. As in other Boroughs, strategies which eat into the green belt are not popular. However, we know that unless we accept the inevitable, opportunist developers like Meridian will be popping up everywhere building just what we don’t want where we don’t want it.
The Appellant’s expert witness has suggested that we might like to work with them on a Neighbourhood Plan for Little Chalvedon Hall Farm. Would we really want to work with a team that tells us black is white and that they can’t sell us land not planned for development because it has “hope value”?
We don’t like the idea of building on green belt but the council’s suggested development sites would be more easily accessible via the A127 and A130 than a blot on the Little Chalvedon Hall landscape. The term “lesser of two evils” seems to have become a buzz term.
The current coalition government promotes localism in local planning. If local people are involved in a Neighbourhood Plan there is more likelihood of the Council taking its communities with it.
Madam, I ask you, on behalf of the residents, to recommend that the Appellant’s Appeal is refused and allow our local council to get on with the necessary planning process without further hindrance.
Madam, in this summary I have sought not to reiterate all the reasons for retaining our green belt, and preventing urban sprawl, repeated time and again in the hundreds of letters of objection already submitted.Summing Up
When Mr. Acres the farmer who owned Little Chalvedon Hall died residents were relieved to hear that the new owners, Nottingham Council, had bought the site as a working farm as a long term investment for their pension fund. Indeed this was confirmed in writing by the Leader of Nottingham Council. What could be more sustainable than a working farm at a time when the UK imports more and more foreign imports? Great!!!
However, within 2 years – despite the site being in the middle of green belt a planning application was put in for 1300 houses, shops, offices and other premises. After strong objection we were told that the Appellant had listened to local concerns and had reduced the number of dwellings to 750 and that the Appellant would use the land which he wasn’t building on to provide green, ecological space. However, when residents tried to buy two of the fields as a conservation area, an offer which we thought couldn’t be refused as it would save the Appellant some costs in maintaining that green area – he turned us down as the fields had “hope value”. One of his expert witnesses has told us that his understanding of “hope value” is that the land might be available for development at a later date.
One of the Appellant’s team has told us that despite plonking a huge development in the middle of green belt that it would create more green space for us and would not do anything to reduce the urban sprawl between our village and Pitsea. We have been told that despite the fact we don’t want to lose our greenbelt that once the development is in place we WILL like it.
The Appellants have told us that despite this huge intrusion into a green belt area which hosts a number of wild species, including some protected species, that we would have an improved ecological environment.
Despite being told by a former local shopkeeper that 3 shops in Pound Lane had closed when the local Tesco’s opened the Appellant has told us that current residents WILL like the new shop and we WILL use it. The Appellants has told us time and time again that they know much better than we do what we really want. Well, what we really want is to keep our green belt.
We used to have 4 shops in Bowers Gifford but when Tesco’s opened 3 of these local shops closed. Another large shop in the area shop might well affect the profitability of our existing shop.
We told the Appellant that the local surgery had closed because residents prefer to use the medical centre in Pitsea. However, the Appellant has told us that we WILL prefer to use the proposed medical centre which intrudes on our green belt.
The Appellant has told us that we do not have the facilities we need and will provide us with a neighbourhood hub. Well, we have sufficient facilities at the Benbow which we have listed in our earlier objections.
The Appellant told us that the project would boost local economy by providing 207 construction jobs. But, the Appellant has not done his homework by researching the multi-million pound Bowers Gifford Sadlers Farm/A130 Improvement project. There has been a lot of publicity over the scheme which was almost 2 years late in delivery. The developer recruited zero local people. In fact, the manager in charge of the site was sacked for recruiting illegal immigrants. The workers who were employed lived in caravans on the site and the only boost to local economy was in theworkers purchase of foodstuffs.
The 2000 square meters (at least I think that was the final figure after some confusion) of Appellant’s proposed industrial premises would employ 73 permanent staff – but 750 new dwellings, most 2.5 storeys high would surely bring in a much larger number of incomers seeking employment. Furthermore, it would be discriminatory for the Appellant to seek to employ only people living on the new development. Bringing in workers from outside would only increase further the volume of traffic on minor roads.
So let us now turn to traffic. The 750 new dwellings plus the industrial area and the facilities in the village hub would increase the traffic by at least 1000 extra vehicles per day. The Appellant seeks to divert Pound Lane – our main thoroughfare around the new village hub which includes a zebra crossing for school children. The Appellant admitted to not being aware of our traveller community. WE have a traveller community within BG&NB and their trotting ponies would also have to use this diversion – slowing things down even more. Even so the Appellant insists on telling us that this diversion will improve the flow of traffic – the residents just don’t realise it.
On Wednesday the Appellant’s expert witness on transport told us that we had pavements along Pound Lane that were all 1.5m to 2m wide. Well our own measurements tell us that this is true in some places but in others the pavements are only 0.8 meters wide. We were told that we had pavements all along Pound Lane – well about half of Pound Lane has NO pavements at all and in some places not even a grass verge to walk on.
The Appellant admitted that the Pound Lane/A127 junction was unsuitable for heavy construction traffic but we were told that the experts would provide a solution and either use Burnt Mills Road or bring heavy construction traffic down Pound Lane from the A13 end. Madam, you saw Burnt Mills Road yesterday – a minor road with no pavements. Pound Lane is also a minor road which would find it difficult to cope with the volume of heavy construction traffic. We were surprised to say the least that no account whatsoever of the additional 200 to 300 lorries a day going to the new waste management site in Courtald Road had been included in the Transport Report. Nor had any account been taken of the additional traffic to be incurred when the new giant port in Corringham is opened. However, the Appellant was not phased by this potential huge increase in traffic and assured us that a solution could be found.
We queried the fact that the expert witness had used average data in his calculations of water runoff from the site in an area prone to flooding. We noticed that the “standard average annual rainfall” (SAAR) figures were based on rainfall between 1941 and 1970. We queried the fact that the computer software (Micro Drainage software) used gave a 24% lower run off rate than the well known Wallingford on-line tool. We were told that the experts know best.
We asked whether the Appellant’s application was untimely following a recent spate of flooding – some of the blame for which has been placed on unsuitable SUDS systems in clay soil and run off from the “improved” A130. We asked whether, in the circumstances, the proposed development was timely in view of the fact that the recently formed Flood Risk Action Group was investigating the number of recent floods with Essex County Council and other agencies....... the Appellants saw no reason to err on the side of caution and saw no reason why they should not push ahead with this development.
Madam, if the Appellants showed us a sheet of black paper I’m sure they would tell us it was white.
However, one thing that the Appellant has said that is true is that residents don’t generally like losing their greenbelt. On 5th February the Leader of our Council came to a public meeting to tell us more about the Council’s draft core strategy, which would take specifically chosen pieces of land, out of our greenbelt. The Resident’s Association had already communicated to residents, via our December and January newsletters, the areas within the North East Basildon Urban extension, which we could lose. On the evening of the public meeting I was worried that introducing Mr. Ball would be like throwing Daniel into the Lion’s Den but miraculously Mr. Ball came out unscathed – just like Daniel. One of the things we discussed at that public meeting was the desire by local people to have our own local plan.
On 26th February – this last Wednesday – council policy planning officers came to another public meeting to give further information on the draft core strategy. So you see we are taking this opportunity seriously.
We realise that a local plan would not give us control over the number of dwellings required but it would give us a measure of control over the design and quality and more importantly location. As in other Boroughs, strategies which eat into the green belt are not popular. However, we know that unless we accept the inevitable, opportunist developers like Meridian will be popping up everywhere building just what we don’t want where we don’t want it.
The Appellant’s expert witness has suggested that we might like to work with them on a Neighbourhood Plan for Little Chalvedon Hall Farm. Would we really want to work with a team that tells us black is white and that they can’t sell us land not planned for development because it has “hope value”?
We don’t like the idea of building on green belt but the council’s suggested development sites would be more easily accessible via the A127 and A130 than a blot on the Little Chalvedon Hall landscape. The term “lesser of two evils” seems to have become a buzz term.
The current coalition government promotes localism in local planning. If local people are involved in a Neighbourhood Plan there is more likelihood of the Council taking its communities with it.
Madam, I ask you, on behalf of the residents, to recommend that the Appellant’s Appeal is refused and allow our local council to get on with the necessary planning process without further hindrance.