Registering
an
objection
Back to
main page
SEARCH
THIS SITE
|
|
Shirenewton Community Council
held a local public meeting at Shirenewton Recreation
Hall on Monday 1st November. At the meeting a number of points
were raised:
- There
was no substantial difference between the plans, the
changes to the amended and therefore current plans were
associated with the garage block arrangements. This
was felt to be 'cosmetic' in that the amended plans
do not substantially change the nature of the development
of the plans for the dwelling, access, etc.
- It
was noted that the Developer applicant (Beacon
Estates Chesptow Ltd)
had recently met with the Community Council to
discuss the amended plans. At that meeting Beacon Estates
had stated that it was their intention to allow the
golf course to return to agricultural use (However it
was noted that the formal application itself does not
explicitly state this). The meeting also highlighted
(again) that the reason for the access to the lane was
for economic grounds on the burden of maintenance.
- It
was noted that the status of the footpaths across the
golf course and grounds affected by the application
is unclear. In the original permission for the
Golf Course it was a condition that the existing road
and footpaths be diverted. The road was diverted and
it is believed that the footpaths were not diverted.
However, there was a recent application to divert the
footpaths and the current status of the paths is unclear.
Prior to the latest diversion application there was
footpath access across the front of the building.
- The
Community Council's view is that there should be no
development to the south of the village.
- It
was noted that the amended plans seemed to show a larger
boundary (ie more land included in the application than
previously was the case). However, it was not possible
to confirm this as there was no immediate access to the
previous plans. This raised concerns as to why additional
land was included in the parcel as there appears to
be no associated landscaping, etc.
- It
was noted that the Golf Club's buildings and the application
was set in a conservation area. The purpose of a conservation
area is to "enhance & preserve" the area.
The plans do neither. Indeed, it was noted that in the
notes on rural conservation areas issued by HMSO there
are clear directives that there should be no change
to external land, for example the gardens, landscaping,
carparking, etc shown on the amended plans contravene
these notes.
- It
was noted that the garage blocks are 'new building'
and therefore not in keeping with a 'change of use'
application under which the current plans are lodged.
- A
concern regarding light pollution was raised. If street
lights, floodlights, etc were put in it would create
severe light pollution.
- Existing
Golf Club members were clear that no reasonable attempt
was being made to run the Golf Club as a going concern
and the current business practices seemed to be designed
to run the business down.
- A
concern that there was 'one rule for developers' was
raised and another for everyone else was raised. Specifically,
it was felt that developers could use expensive resources
to promote their case whereas the local community did
not have access to the same.
- It
was noted that an old map of the village not showing
the true current housing density had been used in the
1st set of plans to show the location of the proposed
development. As there were no replacements for this
original plan on display it is assume that the same
old map is still current.
- It
was noted that individual 'hand crafted' letters were
better than 'standard' letters for protest purposes.
- The
Community Council confined that it would continue to
oppose the application, that it positively encouraged
individuals to write letters confirming their own objections
and that it did not oppose independent bodies encouraging
others to oppose.
- It
was noted that there were the 40+ attendees at
the meeting (which represented a considerably larger
number of households) despite the meeting being arranged
at very short notice and without a large amount
of publicity. Additionally not one attendee was in favour
of the application.
Please note: the above is
not intended to be a full nor comprehensive 'minutes of meeting'.
It is purely a record of the points raised at the meeting which the author
believes are pertinent.
To register an objection to the plans please follow this link
or go back to the main page.
|
| |
Copyright
2004 by David Cornwell and other contributors. All Rights Reserved.
All views represent the opinion of the authors
and the information contained in this website is provided purely
for information purposes and is provided 'as is' without warranty
either expressed or implied.
Comments,
suggestions, etc. Contact webmaster
Please click here to read full disclaimer
and conditions of use
|
