|
Post by rosegriffin on Apr 12, 2014 12:16:19 GMT
Well done Tee. Thanks for all your hard work.
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Mar 17, 2014 17:49:20 GMT
Many thanks to those who supported our Table Top Sale & Coffee morning on 15th March, either by donations or by coming along to partake.
We made a profit of £246. The Residents Association is self-funding and it is these events and the generosity of residents which keep us going.
Special thanks goes to Pauline Osborn and Joan Goody who manned the kitchen and provided all the cakes and refreshments; Linda & Den Livermore and David Salt who worked tirelessly on our stand all day; Pete Carless who underwrote the costs of the event; Pam Groves, Jackie Anderson, Joshua, and Josie Nicholson for helping out wherever needed.
Thank you also to all the local businesses which supported us - Alton Garden Centre; Empire Cinemas; Pound Lane Garden Centre; the Gun Public House and the Westerleigh Group (cemetery & crematorium).
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Mar 6, 2014 17:31:02 GMT
Police Update
We are experiecing a spate of fly tipping in Church Road, please can you advise your residents if they see this behaviour to please can they call the police and see if they can get the index of the said vehicle. Also we have an operation running called Op Jawbone regarding burglaries and High visability patrols. Please ask residents to make sure that their properties are securley locked when they go out or go to bed and to advise them not to leave their front and back door keys near the said door. If there are any questions or concerns then please let me know. Emma Since receiving the email above we have seen Emma and her colleagues in London Road on a number of occasions trying to ensure that parents, dropping children off at school, park responsibly. She has also told us that children have been issued with notices to give to their parents telling them that they should park responsibly.
Emma Spurr Police Community Support Officer 71681 'A shift' Pitsea South East Basildon East Neighbourhood Policing Team Pitsea Police Station South LPA Internal Extension: 382103 Direct Dial: Essex Police non emergency telephone number: 101 emma.spurr@essex.pnn.police.uk Website: www.essex.police.ukTo find out what is happening in your area: www.essex.police.uk/my_neighbourhood.aspx
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Mar 6, 2014 17:21:28 GMT
While I was out delivering newsletters in Church Road I decided to take a walk through the cemetery. What a lovely peaceful and tranquil place - and what a paradise for wild birds. I'm not much of an ornithologist but I recognised a green woodpecker, a pair of wrens and a blue tit.
Also, I'm very pleased to say that the underpass in Church Road seems to have been cleaned up and is now "walkable". However, don't forget our community police officer's warning about fly tipping in Church Road. If you see anyone dumping rubbish in our roads then please try to get the vehicle registration number and phone the Essex police non emergency number 101
FYI - the RSPB centre, at the end of Church Road is finally open!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Mar 5, 2014 10:52:24 GMT
The Planning Inspector is due to Report on or before 11th April 2014. She will make a recommendation as to whether Nottingham/Meridian's Appeal to build on our green belt will be allowed or rejected. However, the final decision will be with the Secretary of State who will issue his decision on or before 27th June 2014.
The Planning inspector gave no indication at the Appeal as to what her recommendation would be.
Many thanks to Basildon Council for providing an excellent barrister and excellent expert witness. Unfortunately, the other side also had an excellent barrister although on cross-examination the Residents Association rubbished the arguments of some of Nottingham/Meridian's so-called "expert witnesses".
Many thanks to George, Tina and Tracy who provided the bases on which we could cross examine and to Derek who chauffeured the Planning Inspector, Rose and representatives from Basildon Council and Meridian around local roads. Tracy and Laura both spoke as did Councillors Brian Wall, Bernie Foster and Rob Smillie.
Many thanks also to Stephen Metcalfe MP who came along on the last day and spoke eloquently against development on LCHF.
So it's been a real team effort!!!
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Mar 5, 2014 10:48:46 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.
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Mar 5, 2014 10:47:15 GMT
My name is Rose Griffin and I have lived in Bowers Gifford for 33 years. I live in Westlake Avenue.
I am a Parish Councillor and one of the Bowers Gifford & North Benfleet representative on the newly formed Flood Risk Action Group known as the FRAG – a group formed in neighbouring Rawreth with the help of the Flood Forum – a national charity set up to help people whose homes are at risk of flooding.
However, by far the largest organisation which I represent is the Bowers Gifford & North Benfleet Residents Association (RA). People from Pitsea have also joined the Association, and signed our petition, because there is no such group in Pitsea. In fact our biggest donor comes from Pitsea. No local people want development on Little Chalvedon Hall Farm (LCHF) this slender belt of green which separates our villages from the small town of Pitsea. This stretch of green belt is welcomed by all in this well developed area of South Essex.
I don’t want to repeat the things that are written in the 300 letters of objection from 239 homes – they are there in Basildon’s files for you to read. I would however draw your attention to the photos in A4 word format which show some of the flooded areas surrounding Little Chalvedon Hall Farm.
The RA has also written responses to the reports submitted by Meridian in support of its Application to build on our green belt. Those responses, with their numerous queries and contradictions made to Meridian’s statements, were sent to Basildon Council who in turn sent them Meridian but we have not received any reply or counter arguments. The RA responses to Meridian are also in the Basildon Council file.
What I do want to say is that Basildon Council has to build another 12,500 homes by 2031 as part of its new core strategy. Most people think that this is too many particularly because new local builds are not currently selling. Of this 12,500 Basildon are looking to build 2,300 in the North East Basildon Urban extension which includes North Benfleet and about another 300 in the Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet plot lands. Consultation has already started and the Leader of the Council attended the RA meeting on 5th February. The RA has taken a neutral stance at the moment and is only acting as a communication vehicle. However, the feedback that I am getting at the moment is that if development has to happen that Basildon Council’s plan to build along the A127 corridor is by far the lesser of two evils compared to building on LCHF – particularly because the Basildon Council proposal could enable exit and access routes without using Pound Lane, Burnt Mills Road or Rectory Road.
The RA raised the question as to whether we could still draw up our own Neighbourhood Plan and Tony Ball, the leader of Basildon Council, has suggested that we liaise with Basildon’s Planning and Policy Department and the Parish Council. The Neighbourhood Plan proposal is on the RA agenda this evening (25th Feb) and on the pre-agenda meeting of the Parish Council tomorrow (26th Feb) – the Local Plan is on the Parish Council Agenda for tomorrow and a Basildon Council Planning Policy Manager will attend. As I said the Residents Association has adopted a neutral stance at the moment but are working to ensure local awareness and the importance of providing feedback. Such plans are not always easy for laymen to understand so consultation takes time and patience. Residents are currently asking questions, a lot of questions, and Basildon Council are answering them – my email system is hard evidence of this. The RA was set up originally to fight Meridian’s plans to build on our greenbelt but has become almost a full time unpaid job for me.
Whilst a Neighbourhood Plan would give us no control over the number of houses which Basildon has to build locally we can have a measure of control over the quality and design of those dwellings. More importantly we could also have a measure of control about where they are situated. We live in an area which is prone to flooding and with a poor road infrastructure which was not built for the number of proposed dwellings. Bowers Gifford (Bueres pre-Domesday Book and Bures Giffard after the Norman invasion) was known as the village on the marshes and when I moved here there were still a lot of wooden dwellings built off of the ground to protect them from the dampness held in the clay soil. The Anglo Saxon name for Benfleet was Baemfloet which literally means floating wood – in other words it was a swamp. The name Pitsea speaks for itself - most of it was once below sea level.
The Flood Risk Action Group was formed at the end of last year, in the neighbouring village of Rawreth, following a number of houses, which had not previously flooded being submerged in water up to the window ledges. In the last few years farmers in Rawreth and the Equestrian Centre have reported fields which have not previously flooded as being waterlogged. The blame for this sudden increase in water has been blamed on a new estate with a SUDS system that does not work in clay soil, and the building of a new supermarket coupled with poor calculation of the amount of drainage from the new A130.
Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet has suffered similar heavy water waterlogging and some flooding. Last year was the first time that I had to pump water out of my garden – our property backs on to Little Chalvedon Hall Farm. Indeed 5 of the houses in Osborne Road right next to the proposed development have received grants to help flood prevention. Other properties have simply put in their own flood prevention mechanisms.
The end of Pound Land is often flooded. Drainage builds up here because it cannot get under the A127 quickly enough. When it does then the situation in Rawreth is worsened.
What the Flood Forum, the national charity, which has help set up the Flood Risk Action Group has found is that, as with other areas in the country, the various agencies do not have sufficient communication with each other and the lack of a “joined up approach” has led to flooding. The Flood Forum is seeking to arrange a meeting between the FRAG, Essex County Council, Rochford Council, Basildon Council, Billericay Town Council, Chelmsford Council, the various water agencies operating locally including Anglian Water, and the Environment Agency. Following a discussion to identify how things have gone so badly wrong in the past then the Flood Forum hope to make the FRAG a consultative body in all future core strategies and possibly large planning applications. The Flood Forum has said that they have set up such groups in other parts of the country and whilst they cannot undo the damage done that they can help to prevent future flooding and devastation of homes and communities.
Basildon Council’s proposals to build along the A127 corridor would certainly have a lesser effect on Bowers Gifford, Pitsea and North Benfleet. We still worry about the effect on local roads such as Rectory Road, Pound Lane and Burnt Mills Road but we think that solutions can be found. Basildon have said that they will help protect some of the historic buildings and rural areas and, we think that as part of a Neighbourhood Plan, this is achievable. Flooding is more of a worry because whereas our Council’s plan seems more practical as far as Basildon is concerned – any development here may have an impact on neighbouring Rawreth – this is why we need a joined up approach to planning and this takes time.
The current coalition government supports localism in planning. If local people are involved in the planning process then it is more likely that the Council can take its communities with it even if the overall plan is unpopular.
We have a good liaison with Basildon Council Officers. All the organisations I represent are non-political. Even if there was a change of Council in the forthcoming elections we believe that we would work equally as well with any new group. We are not aware of any member of any political party on this council who supports Meridian’s proposed development.
Local people see the Application from Meridian is an aggressive intervention into our local planning process and liaisons with our Council. Little Chalvedon Hall Farm was purchased by Nottingham Council without any consultation about a proposed development. Indeed a letter from Nottingham Council stated that it had bought the land as a long term investment as a working farm. Within two years came the planning application at a time when our elected council were trying to put together a strategy which local people could approve.
Meridian’s proposal to build on our little bit of greenbelt which, if you look at any map, you will see also acts as a wildlife corridor, does not have the approval of 99% of local people.
On behalf of the Parish Council, Residents Association and the Flood Risk Action Group I ask the Planning Inspector to please recommend that local planning be left to our locally elected council.
I am willing to answer any questions on behalf of the organisations I represent.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Mar 5, 2014 10:41:56 GMT
My name is Rose Griffin and I have lived in Bowers Gifford for 33 years. I live in Westlake Avenue.
I am a Parish Councillor and one of the Bowers Gifford & North Benfleet representative on the newly formed Flood Risk Action Group known as the FRAG – a group formed in neighbouring Rawreth with the help of the Flood Forum – a national charity set up to help people whose homes are at risk of flooding.
However, by far the largest organisation which I represent is the Bowers Gifford & North Benfleet Residents Association (RA). People from Pitsea have also joined the Association, and signed our petition, because there is no such group in Pitsea. In fact our biggest donor comes from Pitsea. No local people want development on Little Chalvedon Hall Farm (LCHF) this slender belt of green which separates our villages from the small town of Pitsea. This stretch of green belt is welcomed by all in this well developed area of South Essex.
I don’t want to repeat the things that are written in the 300 letters of objection from 239 homes – they are there in Basildon’s files for you to read. I would however draw your attention to the photos in A4 word format which show some of the flooded areas surrounding Little Chalvedon Hall Farm.
The RA has also written responses to the reports submitted by Meridian in support of its Application to build on our green belt. Those responses, with their numerous queries and contradictions made to Meridian’s statements, were sent to Basildon Council who in turn sent them Meridian but we have not received any reply or counter arguments. The RA responses to Meridian are also in the Basildon Council file.
What I do want to say is that Basildon Council has to build another 12,500 homes by 2031 as part of its new core strategy. Most people think that this is too many particularly because new local builds are not currently selling. Of this 12,500 Basildon are looking to build 2,300 in the North East Basildon Urban extension which includes North Benfleet and about another 300 in the Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet plot lands. Consultation has already started and the Leader of the Council attended the RA meeting on 5th February. The RA has taken a neutral stance at the moment and is only acting as a communication vehicle. However, the feedback that I am getting at the moment is that if development has to happen that Basildon Council’s plan to build along the A127 corridor is by far the lesser of two evils compared to building on LCHF – particularly because the Basildon Council proposal could enable exit and access routes without using Pound Lane, Burnt Mills Road or Rectory Road. The RA raised the question as to whether we could still draw up our own Neighbourhood Plan and Tony Ball, the leader of Basildon Council, has suggested that we liaise with Basildon’s Planning and Policy Department and the Parish Council. The Neighbourhood Plan proposal is on the RA agenda this evening (25th Feb) and on the pre-agenda meeting of the Parish Council tomorrow (26th Feb) – the Local Plan is on the Parish Council Agenda for tomorrow and a Basildon Council Planning Policy Manager will attend. As I said the Residents Association has adopted a neutral stance at the moment but are working to ensure local awareness and the importance of providing feedback. Such plans are not always easy for laymen to understand so consultation takes time and patience. Residents are currently asking questions, a lot of questions, and Basildon Council are answering them – my email system is hard evidence of this. The RA was set up originally to fight Meridian’s plans to build on our greenbelt but has become almost a full time unpaid job for me.
Whilst a Neighbourhood Plan would give us no control over the number of houses which Basildon has to build locally we can have a measure of control over the quality and design of those dwellings. More importantly we could also have a measure of control about where they are situated. We live in an area which is prone to flooding and with a poor road infrastructure which was not built for the number of proposed dwellings. Bowers Gifford (Bueres pre-Domesday Book and Bures Giffard after the Norman invasion) was known as the village on the marshes and when I moved here there were still a lot of wooden dwellings built off of the ground to protect them from the dampness held in the clay soil. The Anglo Saxon name for Benfleet was Baemfloet which literally means floating wood – in other words it was a swamp. The name Pitsea speaks for itself - most of it was once below sea level.
The Flood Risk Action Group was formed at the end of last year, in the neighbouring village of Rawreth, following a number of houses, which had not previously flooded being submerged in water up to the window ledges. In the last few years farmers in Rawreth and the Equestrian Centre have reported fields which have not previously flooded as being waterlogged. The blame for this sudden increase in water has been blamed on a new estate with a SUDS system that does not work in clay soil, and the building of a new supermarket coupled with poor calculation of the amount of drainage from the new A130.
Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet has suffered similar heavy water waterlogging and some flooding. Last year was the first time that I had to pump water out of my garden – our property backs on to Little Chalvedon Hall Farm. Indeed 5 of the houses in Osborne Road right next to the proposed development have received grants to help flood prevention. Other properties have simply put in their own flood prevention mechanisms.
The end of Pound Land is often flooded. Drainage builds up here because it cannot get under the A127 quickly enough. When it does then the situation in Rawreth is worsened.
What the Flood Forum, the national charity, which has help set up the Flood Risk Action Group has found is that, as with other areas in the country, the various agencies do not have sufficient communication with each other and the lack of a “joined up approach” has led to flooding. The Flood Forum is seeking to arrange a meeting between the FRAG, Essex County Council, Rochford Council, Basildon Council, Billericay Town Council, Chelmsford Council, the various water agencies operating locally including Anglian Water, and the Environment Agency. Following a discussion to identify how things have gone so badly wrong in the past then the Flood Forum hope to make the FRAG a consultative body in all future core strategies and possibly large planning applications. The Flood Forum has said that they have set up such groups in other parts of the country and whilst they cannot undo the damage done that they can help to prevent future flooding and devastation of homes and communities.
Basildon Council’s proposals to build along the A127 corridor would certainly have a lesser effect on Bowers Gifford, Pitsea and North Benfleet. We still worry about the effect on local roads such as Rectory Road, Pound Lane and Burnt Mills Road but we think that solutions can be found. Basildon have said that they will help protect some of the historic buildings and rural areas and, we think that as part of a Neighbourhood Plan, this is achievable. Flooding is more of a worry because whereas our Council’s plan seems more practical as far as Basildon is concerned – any development here may have an impact on neighbouring Rawreth – this is why we need a joined up approach to planning and this takes time.
The current coalition government supports localism in planning. If local people are involved in the planning process then it is more likely that the Council can take its communities with it even if the overall plan is unpopular.
We have a good liaison with Basildon Council Officers. All the organisations I represent are non-political. Even if there was a change of Council in the forthcoming elections we believe that we would work equally as well with any new group. We are not aware of any member of any political party on this council who supports Meridian’s proposed development.
Local people see the Application from Meridian is an aggressive intervention into our local planning process and liaisons with our Council. Little Chalvedon Hall Farm was purchased by Nottingham Council without any consultation about a proposed development. Indeed a letter from Nottingham Council stated that it had bought the land as a long term investment as a working farm. Within two years came the planning application at a time when our elected council were trying to put together a strategy which local people could approve.
Meridian’s proposal to build on our little bit of greenbelt which, if you look at any map, you will see also acts as a wildlife corridor, does not have the approval of 99% of local people.
On behalf of the Parish Council, Residents Association and the Flood Risk Action Group I ask the Planning Inspector to please recommend that local planning be left to our locally elected council.
I am willing to answer any questions on behalf of the organisations I represent.
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Mar 5, 2014 10:37:49 GMT
The Planning Inspector is due to Report on or before 11th April 2014. She will make a recommendation as to whether Nottingham/Meridian's Appeal to build on our green belt will be allowed or rejected. However, the final decision will be with the Secretary of State who will issue his decision on or before 27th June 2014.
The Planning inspector gave no indication at the Appeal as to what her recommendation would be.
Many thanks to Basildon Council for providing an excellent barrister and excellent expert witness. Unfortunately, the other side also had an excellent barrister although on cross-examination the Residents Association rubbished the arguments of some of Nottingham/Meridian's so-called "expert witnesses".
Many thanks to George, Tina and Tracy who provided the bases on which we could cross examine and to Derek who chauffeured the Planning Inspector, Rose and representatives from Basildon Council and Meridian around local roads. Tracy and Laura both spoke as did Councillors Brian Wall, Bernie Foster and Rob Smillie.
Many thanks also to Stephen Metcalfe MP who came along on the last day and spoke eloquently against development on LCHF>
So it's been a real team effort.
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Feb 24, 2014 13:31:18 GMT
Please don't forget our Table Top Sale on 15th March, 2014. 10.00 a.m. till 2.00 p.m.
So far we have sold 8 tables to residents and will have a number of tables ourselves. Tables sold so far include hand made greetings cards; hand made jewellery; novelty gifts and bric-a-brac/dvds etc.
We will also have a raffle and a tombola.
Some very kind ladies have offered to make some cakes for our coffee/tea bar but a few more would be greatly appreciated. Why not come along for a cup of tea and a chat - you don't have to buy anything from the stalls!
Help for just a couple of hours would also be gratefully accepted. You don't have to stay for the full 4 hours!!!
Do you have any good quality clothing/costume jewellery that you might otherwise be donating to a charity shop? Please consider donating to the Residents Association.
WANTED UNWANTED CHRISTMAS PRESENTS OR DONATIONS FOR OUR RAFFLE AND TOMBOLA - Did you get a Christmas present you don't want? Finished the jigsaw puzzle or other board game that bought for Christmas - don't put it in the attic and forget about it - someone else might appreciate it!
Our Forum looks a bit different now that it's been updated - we will try to take a laptop along in case anyone is having difficulty getting around the new system.
By 15th March, Nottingham Council's Appeal will be over although we may not have heard a decision - in any case we will update you on what has been going on.
For further information please phone Rose on 01268 726475 or email chair@bowersgifford.info
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Feb 24, 2014 13:09:06 GMT
Why not come along to our Table Top Sale and Coffee Morning on 15th March? The Appeal will have finished although we may not have a decision - but we can at least tell you how things went (or appeared to go!).
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Feb 24, 2014 13:08:56 GMT
First site visit is today!!!
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Feb 24, 2014 10:10:07 GMT
Please note that I am currently following up with Melissa McGeorge, our Essex County Councillor.
Miss McGeorge states that she was not handed any notes regarding St. Margaret's by her predecessor. It is so important to keep minutes of meetings. The minutes of the REsidents Association 5th February meeting will be on our website shortly. I am still trying to locate any minutes of previous meetings between the parish council, school governor, headteacher, ECC Councillor (then Sandra Hillier)but without success.
Please note that the parking issue will be on the Parish Council agenda again on 26th February. The Residents Association was set up specifically to deal with the application to build on Little Chalvedon Hall Farm but has lent itself to a wider remit over the past during its 20 month existence. The parking at St.Margaret's issue is more appropriately dealt with by the parish council, Essex County Council and the diocese.
|
|
|
Post by rosegriffin on Feb 24, 2014 10:04:47 GMT
Minutes of the 5th February Meeting will be on our website shortly. There is a separate minute regarding the St. Margaret's parking issue.
|
|