Public Open Space

Developer is asking URPC to reconsider POS allocation…

UPDATE (12 September 2019): Thankfully, this Agenda item was voted against.

______________________________

The September PC Agenda includes an item on PUBLIC OPEN SPACE;

It is asking the councillors to consider the following:

12. To consider questions from the developer requesting community input into cricket pitches, football pitches, and bowling green vs alternatives, and their future use and maintenance.

COMMENT: The most important point is why has the Parish Clerk and/or the Chairman decided to add this item to the Agenda? Cotswold District Council planning department has already passed the plans “17/04151/FUL”, which means no deviation should be reviewed or accepted.

During the period when input was requested by residents on the planning portal, there was over 200 responses, yet CDC ignored all input. One item discussed was the Trim Trail and a suggestion it should be constructed on the bunds.

Now, that the plans have passed why does the Parish Clerk/Chairman believe that the plans should be changed at the behest of the developers? I am at a complete loss as to why this item is even up for consideration, if URPC follow protocol this request is illegal as Bovis must complete the site IAW 17/04151/FUL.

Therefore why do the developers believe it is their right to forgo the cricket, football pitches and bowling greens. These where promised 7 years ago and they must be procured IAW plans. I just hope URPC has the integrity to do what is right by the parishioners and not the developers.

17/04151/FUL – open space submission

 

Digiprove sealCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Jerry Flint

5 thoughts on “Developer is asking URPC to reconsider POS allocation…

  1. So are you saying that the Clerk/Chairman should filter questions sent to the PC about the development, so keeping the PC in the dark! But, I’m glad to see it was rejected.

    The developers MUST stick to the plans agreed for the second time and stop any ‘horse’ trading, which I hear (no proof) may still be going on!

    1. A very argumentative first sentence. If the plans are passed after 2 years on the planning portal, why would you want to change them? Explain?

  2. Why do you think it was argumentative? I was just pointing out why should the Clerk/Chair filter questions made to the PC.

    Them voting on it with a clear no, makes it very clear the stance of the PC about POS, which I think is very positive message to the developers to just get on with the approved plans and stop trying to tweak them.

  3. But you are wrong David, the plans were passed and they should not be tampered with, otherwise what is the point of the CDC planning committee decision deliberating after a very extended process? The question that was asked came from the Ward Councillor and not the public, go figure.

    Unless, you know something I don’t?

  4. Jerry, I agree the plans should NOT be changed but you were asking why the item should have even been on the agenda and that is the only point I’m talking about.

    So, let me put it another way: the developers ask if they can tweak the plans and the PC don’t respond. Do the developers then think, well the PC don’t care as we’ve not heard back from them and so we’ll make the changes!

    I had heard from another source before the PC agenda had been published, that the developers wanted to tweak the POS plans, so I think it was correct that the PC should have it as an agenda item to say a big NO to them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *