Proposed PC response to development of Rec

Here's the Parish Council's proposed response in full. The council asked me to put it on this blog - so here you are. What do you think?


Informal Consultation : Delivering Development Opportunities

Lynchmere Parish Council Response

Reference is made to two documents; the Initial Sustainability Appraisal (ISA) and the Downs and North of District Informal Consultation Delivering Development Opportunities (DDO).

QUESTION 1.

Site Ref CAH 100 Land at Sturt Avenue.

Environmental Quality

Ÿ This site is subject to similar environmental problems to those present in the neighbouring Crest Nicholson development which was completed last year ( 2006).

The Parish Council would wish to be assured that any further development in this area did not exacerbate the existing drainage and flooding problems caused by proximity of the river Wey which would be subject to even more building run-off, sewage overflow and subsidence problems connected with the low ground levels.


Ÿ Should Waverley decide to develop immediately opposite on its side of the river then the cumulative effects of both developments will increase the environmental impact. This would be difficult to mitigate because there would be no overall responsible authority to take appropriate measures to minimise such damage. The Parish Council would like some assurance from Chichester that appropriate steps would be taken in partnership with Waverley should this situation arise.


Site Exposure

Ÿ Looking at the table on p. 89 of the ISA it is hard to see why, in comparison “against sites within the same settlement” ( ISA p. 8) the opportunities for solar gain are neutral, since the site is fairly level and not unduly visible from public spaces or other housing. We think therefore that the table should show a 3 for this feature.

Accessibility

Ÿ Development on this site will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on the Camelsdale Road and has the potential to turn Moorfields and Sturt Avenue into a rat run at busy times. The junction of the Crest Nicholson development with Camelsdale Road has increased further the heavy traffic experienced there. The Parish Council would wish to be assured that better measures were put in place to restrict the speed of traffic, including the possibility of a 20 MPH limit, along the Camelsdale Road in addition to any crossing facilities which may be put in place in the near future. Should a large development go ahead on the Waverley side this will further exacerbate these problems. We think that the score here should therefore be -6.

Landscape

Ÿ We do not consider that there is any potential here to improve the townscape because such development would further erode the green corridor between Chichester District and Waverley which the River Wey currently provides. This is an essential division in settlements and communities. We think that the score here should be -3

QUESTION 2.

There are no other options proposed by the DDO.

QUESTION 3.

Site Ref CAH 125 Camelsdale Recreation Ground

Any development on this site whether now or after 2018 would be inappropriate and greatly damaging to the community. The Parish Council will oppose any development on it for the following reasons.

1. Environmental Quality

Ÿ The area immediately around the river Wey - the riverside walk - is a Local Nature Reserve. As well as being important in its own right, the stability and well being of this habitat (both the river itself and the land to either side) directly impacts the quality of the continuing habitat around the ponds immediately to the west which are managed by the National Trust. In terms of natural habitat and species populations it is one of the most important sites in the Parish. It is within the existing AONB. Comparing this site “against sites within the same settlement” such as sites CAH 127 or CAH 128, in our view the table shown on p. 89 of the I S A should therefore show -6, -6, -6 giving a total of -18 in this category.

2. Site Exposure
Ÿ Opportunity for Solar Gain; we agree the score.
Ÿ Slope; apart from the immediate river banks, the only part of this site which is level is the two football pitches. The remainder of the site slopes south to north towards the river and slightly east to west at the south end of the site. We think that CAH125 should therefore be 0 or -3 on this element.

3. Land Condition
Ÿ The history of this recreation ground is that it was first rented and then bought by Fernhurst and Lynchmere Parish Councils jointly from Haslemere Urban District Council (Waverley ) , and Fernhurst has since given Lynchmere its share when the Parish boundary moved. When the ground was purchased from Haslemere, much effort and money was expended to create a good playing surface on the pitches. During the last 10 years the Parish Council has spent significant amounts of its precept in sand slitting and drainage to keep the surfaces in good condition. It is hard to see therefore to what aspect the two entries of 3 refer to under this heading; that is, we do not see the potential for improvement except in terms of a playing field, and we think therefore that this should be amended to 0 in both categories.


4. Accessibility
Ÿ Transport modes; the Camelsdale Road has a regular bus service. The Recreation Ground also has its own car park. However, it is hard to see how a housing development on this site would not have some adverse consequence in terms of accessibility as the movement of vehicles from a residential site is so much greater than from a recreation ground. Access would have to be from New Road which already has parking and accessibility problems, or from Camelsdale Road, a main road with many existing traffic problems as described above, so we think the score here should be -3.

Ÿ Services / Facilities; this recreation ground is essential to the sustainability and health of the community for the following reasons. First, it is geographically at the hub of the community. It can be accessed easily by the greatest number of residents in the community without the use of motor transport. It forms part of the core of the community, as represented by the school, village shop, church and church hall, garage, Shottermill ponds, the Mill Tavern and the bus connections to Fernhurst/ Midhurst, Liphook and Haslemere. Secondly, it provides facilities for the following; football, stoolball, boules, BMX biking, nature walking, dog walking, children and toddler playground, and it has a Pavillion to support many of those activities. Many of the facilities such as the childrens’ play equipment have been supported by community fund raising. Furthermore, many of the houses in the area have small gardens and the recreation ground is an essential facility for childrens’ activities and as a sport and recreation area for all age groups. An alternative site within the community with all, or even most of these attributes simply does not exist. In view of the current efforts to encourage a healthy lifestyle it is not acceptable to remove the main sporting facility available to a community. The score here therefore should be -6.

5. Local Character
Ÿ The score of 3 here is incomprehensible. The Recreation Ground represents an extremely attractive open space which is valued by the whole community. How could housing have the potential to “conserve and enhance” ( ISA p.7) this open space? However attractively landscaped a development might be, it could not replace the open aspect of the playing fields with the wildlife interest of the river banks of the Recreation Ground. The score here for landscape should be -6. It is difficult to imagine how there could be any potential to improve the Townscape; many of the houses in the neighbouring streets have small gardens, which does not matter because there is an attractive open space immediately nearby which includes outdoor facilities for all age ranges. Building on this site not only ruins those opportunities for the existing community but places the new households into an impoverished situation.

“The impact on recreational facilities and whether these can be located to an alternative location should be addressed before this site can be considered further.” p. 11 DDO

It will be immediately apparent from an examination of the Parish that there are no available sites within the central, residential areas of the community on to which to relocate the recreational facilities. Those areas, whether private or not, which are currently open spaces are considered in the DDO and below for the possibility of housing development. There are very few, and for all the reasons that housing would create difficulty as discussed above, it is also the case that those sites are not suitable for the relocation of the Recreation Ground because they are not level, are environmentally unsuitable or cannot be accessed easily. It would be absurd to suggest relocation to the outlying parts of the Parish; the whole issue of sustainability depends on community facilities being within easy reach of the largest possible number of residents without recourse to motor transport.

The answer to the above question in the DDO is therefore, no such relocation is possible and therefore this site should be taken out of consideration.

In conclusion, the recreation ground forms an integral part of the main core of the community facilities; it is in the right place and cannot be replaced elsewhere.

It would be difficult to overstate the local opposition which this proposal has generated; more than 200 people attended the District organised exhibition and approximately 30 residents attended the monthly Parish Council meeting the following week to voice their opposition. The Parish Council would like to see Camelsdale Recreation Ground definitively discounted as even a contingency site. Both the Parish Council and residents generally accept the need for more houses in the community, in particular affordable and starter homes. To build on the Recreation Ground however would have the effect of destroying an important part of the very sustainability for which the community was chosen for development.

Good Stuff

Hallo All,

I've been away for a few days - rule 1, no computers. Here's a copy of an email reply I received from the National Trust...

Thank you for contacting us about the proposal to allocate this site for housing. We monitor the preparation of Local Development Frameworks by all the various planning authorities and were aware of this one. We will be sending in our objection to this site and comments on a number of others in the district.
Once again thank you for contacting us.
Kind Regards
Jane Arnott
Land Use Planning Adviser - South East Region

On my comments about the 'Lantern' which provoked a response. I absolutely agree that we don't need to be a divided community, but if we are to respond effectively to the CDC proposals then it means reaching out from all sides. Our colleagues in faith have not come forward to object in any clear and up front way. So let's hear it from the faith community. What do you think of these proposals? Can you suggest an alternative to the proposed (possible) destruction of the rec? How do you think it will impact on the spiritual life of the village? If you have a view then let it be known to the district council - and let us know you're in there too.

I've had a preview of the Parish Council's response to the proposal to build on the rec AND Sturt Rd which I will put on to this blog shortly. It's not bad at all, quite robust and detailed and thoughtful.

Yes, we've had some good coverage in the local press, both about this blog (which is the hook) but also well done to Philippa Topham who got a cracking letter in to the Haslemere Herald in the lead spot. I have been in touch with a PR company I use for other business who have given some good suggestions for a campaign. My feeling is that we should pitch up to the parish council meeting to hear formally their response (6th March, same time and venue as the last one) and then decide what, if any kind of campaign we need to organise and mount. We need to bear in mind that we don't yet know when the CDC will get round to considering the response (I'm learning about this stuff as we go) and I think a good campaign over the next few weeks/months might have some influence. PC response to come soon.

Not much light from the 'Lantern'.

Two items dropped through my letter-box today, amongst the usual bills, junk and dross. One was a call to arms about the rec - don't know who wrote it but well done, full of suggestions about what to say in letters of protest and crucially giving out the address and contact details of the district council. So there's no excuse for not knowing who to call and by when. It's:

Chichester District Council
Planning Dept
East Pallant House
Chichester
West Sussex
PO19 1TY

and objections must be in by 2nd March. I had an interesting chat with a 'Herald' reporter today who is writing a story about this blog and was keen to hear about the survey and what it told us. Check out the next edition.

The other thing which slid on to my doormat today was the 'Lantern'. On its front cover it says that it's 'A community newsletter reporting on happenings in the parishes of St Peter's Lynchmere and St Paul's Camelsdale'. It's only if you look at the small print inside the front cover that you discover it's a 'Christian publication prepared and financed by'.. the respective churches. 'As both a church and a community resource'. Here's where the possible proposal to concrete over the rec within the next ten years - the most devastating thing which could happen to our community gets a mention - page 12. The vicar doesn't give it a nod in his introduction and you have to wade through yards of stuff about prayers and church before you get to any mention of what might be going on in our community. Apparently not a community that includes secular people, agnostics, muslims, jews and so on.. and in my case I'm happy to say that Charles Darwin is the only one who made sense of it all to me.

My point here is that we need leadership from our community which is for all the community if we are to defeat the proposal to build on the rec at some point in the future. This means it needs to be inclusive and that means we need a website and a newsletter from the Parish and District Councils which tells us all, regularly about plans which may affect our village. Without fear or favour. Then we won't have to rely on the 'Lantern' for the occasional hint.

Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins be with you all.

Did you get the flyer?

Chichester District Council
Planning Dept
East Pallant House
Chichester
West Sussex
PO19 1TY



I'll try to get the results of the survey in print in to Cee Gees for people to pick up soon. It's only right that people who filled it in get to hear about the results - which were very good. You can also find the results on this blog.

The flyer which came round didn't have the Chichester DC postal address so it's here at the top of this blog. Please IF YOU'RE READING THIS AND YOU CARE ABOUT THE REC, WRITE NOW. YOUR OBJECTION DOESN'T NEED TO BE CLEVER OR INFORMED OR KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT PLANNING MATTERS, IT JUST NEEDS TO OBJECT TO THIS ILL-INFORMED IDEA. The end-date for objections to the idea of building on the rec during the informal phase is 2nd March, so not much time left.

By the way, I know that a number of people have posted comments on this blog, but I've no idea how many people have read it or done anything as a result. If you know anyone who's been here and used it, it would be good to know. I suspect from the reaction at the Parish Council meeting that a lot more people have been to this blog than I know. It would be great to know how many people have got on and protested by email or post too.

Onwards and upwards. If you want to moan, and I for one think that moaning is a really effective way of registerng a protest go to http://www.chichester.gov.uk/and moan at them. Interestingly, there's no easy way to find out district councillor's Chichester DC email addresses - Tex where are you? In fact I think it's very interesting that our elected representatives seem to be keeping a low profile. Do we wonder if they might be happy to see development in Camelsdale (possibly 170 houses BUT fewer in Fernhust and none in Lynchmere or Hammer)? I only ask in the absence of information to the contrary. I exempt Heather from this as she's been commendably cross about the proposals. Well done Heather, but you seem to be a voice in the wilderness?

How much does the rec get used?

Thanks to everyone who took the time out to fill in the survey forms about how much the rec gets used. The number of completed forms was enough to be a viable sample and provides a real snapshot of how often we visit the rec.

How often do you visit the rec? 23% of the respondents visited more than once a day, whilst 60% visited more than once a week. A sturdy 2 respondents visited more often and the rest from time-to-time each month.

When asked about their children or grandchildren's use of the play park 11% used it more than once a day (they must be the toddlers I think), almost 50% used it more than once a week and the rest used it from time-to-time each month.

95% agreed that it is a vital resource for wildlife and enjoyed seeing the creatures too.

And a splendid 100% said that they love the place and agreed that building over it would be a crime.

Of course this isn't a gold-standard randomly controlled piece of research but is more than the district council seems to have done, and perhaps more telling than the figures are the comments people made:

"Don't build on it!Or teens will have nowhere to go and will get in to trouble!"

"It's the nicest play area in the ..... area. We choose this one to go to instead of about 5 others we could visit."

"Child health is of major importance and it is more important than ever to encourage playing and outdoor activity, this is the only accessible playground for our child."

"A vital area of our community and was a factor when we bought our house. Please consider other alternatives."

"Having a child at Camelsdale First School and a new baby who will be attending in the future, I'm concerned that not only will they lose their cherished play area but that the school will be overwhelmed by the excess pupils brought to the area by the new housing that is proposed."

"Camelsdale Rec is a vital social area for the local community for all age groups. It is used for children's play, football matches, stool ball matches, dog walking and it is somewhere safe our children can gain their first taste of independence. It is a beautiful spot and certainly the wildlife would suffer if this land is built on (owls, foxes, bird life). Please don't spoil this beautiful place."

"This plan is not thought through at all. Camelsdale doesn't have the infrastructure to support these extra families and the traffic at rush hour is horrific as it is and could not support the extra congestion. It is ironic that at the very time the government is starting to act to reduce child obesity the council are reducing the recreation space."

"The need to keep such recreational areas are essential. Sporting events undertaken by the children each weekend are an important part of life in Haslemere and cannot be taken away."

And finally.......Everyone agreed that communication from the PC (although I think it's beginning to improve) and elected councillors - district and county MUST improve.

Your fete in their hands

Thanks for the comments on the last post about the Parish Council meeting. In answer to some of the questions which arose from it....

Yes I am thinking about standing for the PC, but a vacancy won't arise for a few months so I can't do it now. As for the fete, I wasn't intending that we hold one before the 2nd of March - too cold and wet. But I do think it might be a)fun to do it in the summer and b)it will demonstrate how much the rec is used and cared about. Chichester DC will keep its beady eye on the rec for some time to come, possibly over the next few years so the village must keep up its protests for quite a while. Even if the DC decides, as a result of the response to its consultation that it will take the rec off its contingency list - it can still put it back on at a future date or under a different government. It's very difficult to get local government to change its plans once its got an idea in to its head.

So I think a number of well publicised events over the next months and years will be a good thing to do.

I have collected loads of completed survey forms from Cee Gees and will publicise the results in my next blog post and will tell the DC how much the rec is used. I might do a press release too, just to keep things on the boil. If anyone missed the survey forms in the shop you can download one from this site, just go back a few pages. Good old Cee Gees, they've been great about hosting the form-filing.

The Parish Council Meeting

Well, that's my cover blown after last night's meeting. Thank you everyone who said nice things to me about this blog. Unfortunately now that everyone knows who I am and some of them know where I live I can't be quite so rude about Chichester DC.

So what happened?

An excellent turnout - about 30 people turned up plus the Parish Councillors, a couple of district councillors and the well known county councillor 'Tex' Pemberton. I have to ask, does anyone know where his first name came from? I digress but it was a good crowd for a freezing cold Tuesday evening. Sylvia McC was in the chair and did a fine job - adjusting the agenda so we didn't have to sit through hours of stuff and making sure everyone got to have a say, and in one case a bit of a swear.

Key themes:

1. General agreement that communication from Chichester DC has not been good. The informal consultation meetings last week were not considered to have been well done. There was general bafflement that the DC was under the impression that there had been 'no response' from residents to the proposal as none of us knew about it until the recent press articles.
2. Unanimity on all sides that the thought of building on the rec is A BAD THING and that IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.
3. After a bit of a rant about John Prescott's department wanting to concrete over large parts of the south east, there was (I thought) a remarkable sense of agreement that like it or not we are going to have to put some more houses somewhere and a number of good alternatives were suggested. One possibility might be the National Trust field next to the roundabout. I have to say I've never understood why it's an NT site. It's a nice enough field and sometimes a few sheep are grazing there but er, that's it. Nobody could understand why the Syngenta site at Fernhurst had been discounted as it seems to be a prime piece of real estate, the development of which would not be greenfield. It seems that the DC isn't really being imaginative about it as a possibility.
4. There were lots of good reasons why building on the rec would be wrong e.g. utilities such as roads and sewage pipes couldn't cope, the destruction of recreation grounds is contrary to public policy in other fields e.g. children's health and so on.

The Parish Council appears to be determined to put forward a robust response to the proposal, setting out why the rec is a bad idea for building and suggesting alternatives. Hurrah! But everyone is also urged to write individually to Chichester DC planning department by March 2nd - so please, please do.

But, now is not the time to think that it won't happen. The issue needs to be kept on the boil so that the council understands we won't go away. Personally, I think a steady press campaign might not be a bad idea. Perhaps a mass dog walk (bring poo bags please) one day? Possibly a rally on the rec with the local MP invited to speak or even a village fete. Post your thoughts and ideas about last night's meeting here and about anything else to do with saving the rec.

Parish Council Meeting

Here's a picture of a joyful dog on the access road to the rec.

The PC meeting is at St Michael's Hall Hammer, Tuesday 8pm. That's the hall next to the Hardman Hoyle. The meetings apparently go on for a long time but the Rec is to be dealt with under correspondence. This is because the PC has to respond to the District Council's request for informal consultation feedback. I understand that it will be dealt with reasonably early in the agenda.

The public are allowed to attend meetings but not to speak. Which in one way is ok because it would be a complete free-for-all and therefore chaos. On the other hand I think we need a bloody good public meeting at which everyone can speak and we can INTSRUCT our representatives on our views. However, the PC do allow a brief period at the end of meetings for the public to speak.

The PC intends to take a robust response to the proposals to wreck the rec, along the lines many of us have already thought, but it would be much better if they did so having undertaken a meaningfull poll of resident's views. Well, that's what I think anyway.

Parish Council Meeting

The meeting is at St Michael's Hall in Hammer next to the Hardman Hoyle Hall. Cunningly, it's difficult to work out what time it starts. Plus we, 'the public' are invited to attend all Parish meetings, but my spies tell me that we will then have to sit around for as long as it takes the councillors to get through their business before we can raise other issues or generally get involved. So you might want to bring a book. Or an iPod. Or perhaps we could talk quietly amongst ourselves.

Interestingly, according to the sad bits of paper on the Parish notice boards (do the parish council have a website? Why not? This is the 21st century)there is a vacancy for a Parish Councillor. I might think about standing, but if anyone else is feeling keen, you're welcome to join in. I'll try to get the time of the meeting on to this site tomorrow (Monday).

By the way I'm glad to see so many people making comments - what a boost! The site has been up for only a week and is obviously beginning to attract attention. I wish it were possible to do this kind of stuff without a site, but I suspect that as we all lead very busy lives, getting our thoughts known through a community website like this is easier. Pity there isn't a pub or club in the centre of Camelsdale which would make meeting up easier. But perhaps a meeting at the Mill might be in order some time? If the landlord is ok about it.

Last but not least I wandered out on to the rec this beautiful frosty morning to ask the football club about their views on the possible build (Note to district councillor - yes there's a football club playing here). Haslemere were all very fed up and knew about it. When I asked one of the opposition Dad's, his response was 'We're the away team', so I asked him if they might want to come back some time and play here, especially if it was a building site. Great credit to him he agreed that it isn't just a Camelsdale thing.

Filling in forms is good

Here's a form you might like to print off and place in a box in Cee Gees please? We must put our objections in to Chichester BC by 2nd March, even though this is an informal stage. I think we could do with some leadership and va va voom from the Parish Council too. Parish Council meeting on the 6th Feb. Be there or be square.

Click on the form to magnify and then you can print it off. But wait for a day or two because I've got to ask Julie at Cee Gees if she's ok about the box!

Time to get serious

Here's a picture of some very angry Camelsdale wildlife.

Well I went to the informal consultation yesterday, as did as many people who could and who knew about it. And this is the deal. The council's first choice for building is land by the pumping station at Sturt Rd. BUT and it's a big but, if by 2018 there are not enough new houses both built there and on other sites as they become vacant e.g. building 3 0r 4 houses where previously one had been then the rec gets it.

However, knowledge is power and we are beginning to learn more. The council acknowlegdes that there are difficulties in developing the rec. These include the risks to the adjacent National Trust Shottermill ponds from pollution and building site run-off, the fact that it is a recreation ground and there are no other alternatives and so on. Interestingly it doesn't mention (does it know?) that the rec is in fact owned by the parish council. That's' the parish council as representing us the residents.

So here's what to do. There is a parish council meeting on February 6th, I've asked for the place and time and will post, although it's probably on the notice board by the main rec gate. I'm going to go and have asked the Parish clerk to let me know if the rec is to be discussed. Anyone else coming?

Secondly I'm researching succesful objections to proposed developments - how was it done? - Who did it? Did it cost much to do? For example objectors recently knocked back proposed developments at Hindhead on the grounds that the infrastructure i.e. the roads, the Victorian sewage system couldn't take the strain. So it can be done.

A responder commented on the last post that the meetings for the informal consultation held yesterday weren't very well advertised and also that objections must be in by March 2nd, which I didn't know either. I'm also going to ask my dear daughter to design a poster for distribution through this site.

Here are the Parish Clerk's contact details - write to the Parish Council if you do nothing more!

The Clerk: Mr. D.J. Bleach
Address: Parish Council Office Village Hall, Glebe Road, Fernhurst Haslemere, Surrey, GU27 3EH
Telephone No.: 01428 661150,
Email Address: postmaster@lynchmere-wsx-pc.gov.uk