NOTES ON MEETING AT COLEHILL ON 17TH FEBRUARY 2012
PRESENT: Dave Mitchell: Annette Brook: Janet Dover: Dave Ayre Head of Countryside and Business Development at DCC: Hillary Chittenden: Parish Council Vice Chair
Our Uddens woodlands lie outside of the Colehill Parish but they are affected by the proposed development as it is used by them for recreational purposes, and also as a trailway.
HILLARY
Must object on following grounds:
SUSTAINABILITY
SUITABILITY OF SITE FOR GYPSY AND TRAVELLER PEOPLE
IMPACT ON EXISTING RESIDENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
Sustainability appraisal not good enough as it did not take into account the current amenity use of the site.
Noise of A31
30 hectares to the east to be developed for industrial use.
Unlikely to reduce’ the fear of crime’.
Hillary then gave the ecological background to the development of heathland starting with the Mesolithic times. Heathland is a man made ecosystem which still required management to prevent it degrading or reverting to scrub and woodland. If developers wanted to put 25 houses on the site they would have to prove that it would not increase the pressure on the nearby heathlands. They would have to prove that any mitigation would negate the additional impact.
No adverse comments based on prejudice should be made.
Mention adverse impacts on the community, both close and wider community.
Will it suit the travellers?
What impact would they have on the way you use it?
Do you drive to it? Where else would you go?
What wildlife do you see?
This is only round 1 in the consultation, there should be a round 2 in July Sept. (However, it is not impossible that DCC will put in a planning application meanwhile and determine it themselves – my note). If it goes to an EIP this will be approx November 2013. * See copy of the Process for Planning Applications.
Dave Mitchell – same objections would be required if luxury flats or a fish factory.
Janet Dover – Green Belt. Not in original site document, not on selected list. It was in a list of Green Belt sites. It all happened behind closed doors, decisions already made. DCC will put in an application for someone else to determine, or will determine if someone else puts in the application – NEEDS CLARIFYING, VERY COMPLEX.
DAVE AYRE
Head of services for Gypsy and Traveller sites. DCC is a consultee, EDDC to determine the sites to go in the final plan BUT DCC authorises sites. They need authorised sites to trigger the necessary authority for the police to deal with unauthorised stands.
Story behind bid for funding – Uddens was one of the sites and F.C. offered it. Panel decided Uddens worthy of further investigation. Work suspended after 2010 election, reinstated April 2011. Small window of opportunity to apply for grant. Bid is not specifically for Uddens but any 25 pitch transit site.
Site is a matter of due process. They have to have planning permission before the funding is handed over. If other sites come forward they will need an additional consultation to cover the new sites. After this, then EDDC will put forward their ‘preferred options’ (also other LAs as all in the one document) After this it is off to the Secretary of State.
JANET DOVER – Cabinet Meeting 1st Feb 2012, they refused to object the this site going forwards. As it was not on the original lists and they had applied for funding, indicated BIAS. They would not object but would suggest some further investigation . 'Janet was supportive of residents objections to the site and would like to see it taken out of the investigation as it was inappropriate to put it in.'
ANNETTE BROOK – Watching out for the Governments new policy and any possible new approach. Thinks DCC action is appalling but they do need a transit site. However, the site must be right for all parts of the community.
She is not convinced that EDDC will have the last word, thinks DCC will trump it!
QUESTIONS FOLLOWED AT THIS POINT.
Some were very good, sorry not typed up as too many and most did not add to the clarity surrounding the site. Only one, evidently DCC has not yet paid for a 25 year lease. The lease will not be paid for until they have planning permission. THEREFOR, IF IT DOES NOT OWN THE LAND, EDDC SHOULD BE THE DETERMINING AUTHORITY. Very complex, perhaps someone else can interpret the legalities more clearly and with greater certainty.
DAVID PACKER tells us to write to EDDC – we need to clarify this point.
GEORGE RUSSELL – The loss of the Uddens site as an informal recreational area would be in direct conflict with the Heathland Mitigation DPD, and would be at odds with what it is trying to achieve.
Sorry, very rough interpretation/notes on meeting. Sorry about spelling and TLAs.
Janet Healy 20th Feb