Digging up the streets dept.

I spoke to nice Mr Westmore of CDC who was helpful (see last post). He was apologetic about the tone of the leaflet, explaining that it had been put out before his office had approved it. He was also very keen to point out that the roadworks have nothing to do with 'other matters'.

The resurfacing work is routine, it just happens to be the turn of New and School Roads which is good as they haven't been properly done since - wait for it - 1961. Mind you, given the number of potholes filled-in, holes covered over from water and other utilities digging away I think the road probably has been resurfaced quite a few times in total, just not in any particular order if you get my drift.

We have to sort out our own parking arrangements so it could be an interesting few days in the parking dept around here. However the contractors are under orders to be helpful and we are told that if we have a word with the site foreman/woman he/she will arrange access for those of us who need to get our cars to and from front doors. And, new road technology being what it is the new tarmac can be safely driven on half an hour after it's been laid.

So now we know.

Road Works - at last!!!!!!

Here's some interesting news. Presumably everyone in New and School roads have had this leaflet pushed through their doors? If not you can print this one off. What's interesting about this then?

1. Is the re-surfacing work being undertaken as a result of the meeting earlier this winter at Camelsdale School where residents explained forcibly that they were fed up with underinvestment in infrastructure; speeding cars and a lack of safe crossings?
2. A cunning plan to buy us off by sorting the roads out a bit so we stop whining about the possibility of building on the rec?
3. Just part of the routine road improvements which every village gets on a rotation?

Who can tell as the leaflet doesn't say?

But it's (the leaflet) also a bit sinister too. We are being told that the police will remove cars parked in the way of the surfacing work, but it doesn't tell us where else we can park. What are the arrangements to be made for disabled or elederly people? Or children? Or parents with babies and tinies in buggies?

Co-incidentally, I've just spoken to a very thoughtful and helpful young woman who did agree that the leaflet isn't that useful but said that the contractors will try to help out with regards to access and so on. But if you want to know more you can ring Neil Westmore who's a W.Sussex CC employee and apparently knows what's going on 01243 642105 or you can email highways.western@westsussex.gov.uk where I am assured you will get lots of help and info.

Watch out though as the work starts week beginning April 1st (true) and is likely to be very dispruptive for a bit.

You What?

Here's what the Minister with responsibility for Housing and Communities had to say today in a national newspaper. Just goes to show how out of touch all our politicians can be, of whatever hue when they've been in power for a long time. To think that a government minister should want to vilify those who protest about the destruction of green spaces in much the same way that Ridley did in the 80's is quite awful. She completely missed the point that we want our children and grandchildren to be able to afford to live where we do, if they wish. Dumb, just dumb. Here's what I wrote to her. Why don't you write too? Her email address is yvette.cooper@communities.gsi.gov.uk

"Dear Ms Cooper,

Your piece in the 'Guardian' Response column is astonishingly out of touch with mainstream feeling about housing development. You ask about campaigners who are not indignant about the lack of opportunity for first time buyers or the crowded condition of many family homes.

Here in my little corner of Sussex, Chichester District Council is proposing to concrete over the only recreation ground in our village, if it cannot reach government targets for new housing in the area. This is a much valued piece of land used by families, football clubs, people seeking exercise and social contact - it is part of the glue which binds our community together and its loss would no doubt cause significant social damage and contribute to the failure of other government policies on crime and disorder or tackling childhood obesity. This despite an excellent former factory site in the locality which could be developed.

At a recent Parish Council meeting many villagers there accepted the need for more housing contrary to your assertion; of course we want our children to have a chance to buy or rent affordable homes nearby if they wish and we accept that people want to move to the south or south east for jobs. But we do object strongly to the idea that our green spaces should go for what will inevitably result in massive profits for developers and those who choose to invest in property on a buy-to-rent basis – with no discernible re-investment in to the community. Not to mention again the social consequences of the destruction of green spaces.

I despair of the fact that our government seems, at all levels, local and national to be so out of touch with local issues over planning. We are not Nimbys but we do expect our government to be far more creative in its thinking about housing the people of this country instead of destroying its green spaces.

Perhaps you or your officials might like to visit www.savecamelsdalerec.blogspot.com in order to form a more accurate picture? Doubt it though.

Sincerely yours – thinking about placing my vote elsewhere,


Mike"

One from the heart

In the last few weeks I suppose this blog/site has concentrated on the harsh realities - that is how to object to the possible building on the rec, getting the news out to the local community so they know what's being considered and so on. Now that we're past the deadline for objections and in to the waiting I thought it might be nice to think about some of the softer stuff. Why do we care so much about this piece of ground?

Well, this is why I care. I want it to be there for my children's children. It was a wonderful place for my kids, still is actually and when I'm - as I hope I will be, a Grandpa I'd like to take my toddling next generation to the play park, walk the dog with them and all that ordinary, everyday stuff that makes us what we are. I want to hear the vixen screeching at 2 o'clock in the morning and the owls hooting past my bedroom window. I'd like to see Haslemere football played there - GO GIRLS!! on a Sunday morning and teenagers sitting in the sun just chatting and eyeing each other on a warm evening in August. I'd like to revel in the greens and the autumn and the winter colours, different every day - and to watch the solitary (not lonely) dog walker throwing a stick or ball and having a moment of pleasure with a companion who can't speak but would object strongly to building if he/she could.

That's all. Not much to ask really is it? The pictures above were sent to me by a neighbour who's lived here longer than my children have been alive, longer actually than my wife too and almost as long as me. They show a green and pleasant space, even then in the 70's and 80's. Chichester District Council are you there? Let's keep it that way.

Readers Writes

Here's a map. Two interesting pieces of correspondence dropped through my door this last week.

The first from a neighbour who is a solicitor and who has had a little look at the land registry as it relates to the rec. It would seem that for most of the rec there is a restrictive covenant which prevents it being used for any other purpose than as a recreation ground. But some parts of it (I think I've got this right, land registry language being a bit of a minefield) notably the track at the back of New Road houses and the area used for boules and part of the kids skate ramp area are released from this covenant. Don't know why. But what this seems to mean is that the rest of the rec must be used only for recreational purposes. Hmmmm interesting. Don't the various councils know this?

Reader number two is a well-known chap who has a fantastic grasp of local issues and history and let me have sight of his erudite and forcefully argued objection(s) to the possible development. In a real piece of irony it turns out that the rec was originally built using rubble and building refuse from the Syngenta site. So the 'benefits' of the Syngenta site made our rec and the same is now under threat because the Syngenta site is apparently off-limits for development. Weird or what? Camelsdale, through its own hard work, profits from Syngenta site rubbish, and having turned it in to something good can only look on in despair as it might be destroyed because the origin of the rubbish must be protected. It would be interesting to know what the locals felt about the Syngenta site rubble/creation of the rec at the time. The lady I bought my house from remembers the rec as being woodland in the early 80's.

District councils apparently have no sense of history or indeed sense. I still haven't got it about the Syngenta site and why it's not suitable for development.

Interestingly there was a report published today warning councils to ensure they take in to account the impact on people's health when considering development. Living in built-up areas is bad for your health and well-being unless you have access to green spaces which provide recreation and sport. News to CDC presumably.

I can't make the PC meeting this evening unfortunately. Reports please.