17/04151/FUL – Public Open Space – new plans 2 Jan 2019

8 thoughts on “17/04151/FUL – Public Open Space – new plans 2 Jan 2019

  1. I see plenty of Hoggin paths, so CDC planning have ignored their own recommendations just approving whatever LinBo lays before them! So what chances of any enforcement of planning breaches in future? None whatsoever! What the hell it’s the most beautiful looking industrial waste dump in the country!

  2. These are the unconfirmed minutes from the meeting held on the 12th December which passed the application:

    Variation of condition 1 of reserved matters permission 12/03810/REM dated 23/01/2013 to provide detailed plans and sections of open space provision and to provide amended plans for hard surfacing and planting at Land Parcel at Upper Rissington, Gloucestershire, GL54 2NP –
    The Case Officer drew attention to the extra representations received since publication of the Schedule of Planning Applications. The Case Officer displayed various plans relating to playspace, areas of play and a trim trail and photographs of the site from various vantage points.

    A representative from the Parish Council and the Agent were then invited to address the Committee.

    The Committee Officer then read out comments on behalf of the Ward Member, who served on the Committee, but was absent from the Meeting. The Ward Member had stated that the application was in respect of ‘open space provision and to provide amended plans for hard surfacing and planting’ only and did not relate to many other concerns that residents of Victory Fields held.

    The Ward Member commented that, owing to the Developers failing to provide facilities, environment and life-style promises, the residents concerned had been severely let down but highlighted that these were issues between the residents and the Developers and were therefore not to be considered when determining this application.

    The Ward Member added that whilst he hoped the Committee would approve the application, as recommended, strict conditions would be enforced and completion ensured within a timely manner and to a quality standard. He added that he hoped to see,
    (i) a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) provided within the proposals;
    (ii) a combined cycle and pedestrian pathway of tarmac, not hoggin, surface; and
    (iii) provision for vehicle access to the allotment site and drew attention to the fact that a mains water system, as oppose to a bowser, would now be provided for the allotments.

    The Ward Member continued that he was delighted to see that the Council would obtain a peer review of the final contamination report and that the Developers would be providing a suitable certificate authenticating and verifying the report which would leave them liable for the future.

    With regard to the location of the trim trail, play areas and exercise equipment, the Ward Member explained that concerns regarding the positioning of these areas previously close to properties had now been mitigated and that the distances proposed now met national guidance standards without any overlooking or noise issues.

    In conclusion, the Ward Member wished to extend his thanks to the Case Officer and Environmental Health Officer for their time in relation to the application and concluded that he hoped the Committee would debate the application to the length that it deserved.

    In response to various questions from Members, it was reported that the radiation hot-sport, believed to be caused by buried former aircraft dials was to the west of Duncan Way and was not affected by the development; a contamination report of 2015 had found that the current use of the site was suitable; the Parish Council had previously requested a MUGA, however the Developer had offered a skate park as an alternative which was above and beyond requirements;

    the original scheme had featured a plain open space intended for use as a football pitch, which would also serve the village, but this had been replaced by the proposed skate park;

    a MUGA required high fencing and lighting and was therefore, in the view of Officers, not considered suitable for the AONB location of the site; enforcement action had not been taken by the Council against the development as Officers had undergone conversations with the Developers and had been impressed by the recent and substantial progress at the site;

    an area by the Officer’s Mess was considered the most suitable for a MUGA pitch but, owing to the number of different pitches required of the Area (football, cricket and five-a-side), there was not considered enough space to accommodate an Area;

    the central cycle and foot path on the main spine road at the site would be tarmaced whilst the other paths would be of a hoggin surface as this was considered to be suitably hard-wearing by Officers;

    parking nearby to the allotment site, in the view of Officers, would not outweigh the potential harm caused and therefore was not considered suitable to condition;

    and as the application represented a new full application, there was a requirement to re-apply all of the original conditions to any permission granted and hence the number of conditions in relation to this application.

    A Member commented that he considered it vital that the Developers apologised to the Parish Council and residents of the site after they had been let down on many occasions over a period of years and added that; should the Developers had undertaken positive communication with the residents during the development, the effects would not have been so disappointing.

    Another Member expressed his support for the application explaining that the application was a welcome departure resulting in the creation of a new community within the District. He also explained that, thanks to the work of Officers, compromises on some aspects had been met and that a good overall result had now been achieved.

    A Proposition, that the application be approved, was duly Seconded.

    Various Members also echoed the views expressed by the Ward Member in that any conditions linked to the application be restrictive and properly executed by the Developers. They also added their disappointment on behalf of the residents at the Developer and commented that the development had wasted a large amount of Council time.

    Approved, as recommended, subject to the Case Officer being granted delegate authority to negotiate vehicle access to allotment plots located on the site.
    Record of Voting, for 15, against 0, abstentions 0, absent 0.

  3. There are many holes in the MINUTES published by CDC below. Because of this what faith do we have in CDC, for example they quote, “In response to various questions from Members, it was reported that the radiation hot-sport, believed to be caused by buried former aircraft dials was to the west of Duncan Way and was not affected by the development”.

    Can anyone explain where Duncan Way is?

    I also wonder seriously about our Ward Councillors motives are after reading the above.

  4. No one cares a dam, it’s obvious so ask why? There us only one reasonable answer! Banana Republic syndrome, got it yet? This is not being cryptic, but legally PC!

  5. You care, a few of us campaign actively but what has happened since the 2 Public meetings in 2017! They did not happen by chance! How many bother to post their concerns at CDC, how many attend URPC meetings. URPC limps along but effectively does nothing to very little! We had a petition to change URPC, what happened!? NA is still in position, MMC is stil planning to overload the amenities we do have, ably supported by DS who along with the rest of the councillors at CDC add no value to this place so please share with everyone who you believe actually cares in your opinion.

  6. David has proved that by providing the actual location of a road that CDC believes is in Upper Rissington! How can CDC get it all so horribly wrong?

Make a change, make a comment?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.