VILLAGE GREEN
Many of you will know that unfortunately we lost the Application for Village Green Status. One of our witnesses said that she had never seen any one on the Hill and other people had told her that they had only seen people walking on the footpaths. The Group have taken advice on whether we could appeal. To do this we will need to raise approx £3/3,500 to obtain a second opinion from a barrister and if he thinks that we have a 60% chance or more of success then we can apply for legal aid, but with the evidence given by one party it seriously diminishes our chances. However, our witness's evidence seriously impacts on our chances.
______________________________________________
LDF
A few people have e-mailed the writer concerned about the amendments required to the LDF (Core Strategy or Plan that West Berks is putting in place with the Secretary of State for the housing development of West Berks). Please do not worry Pincents Hill is not one of the amendments and is not included in the LDF.
Blue Living has always said that if its planning application failed that they would get it through on Appeal. So as to try to prevent this, the Save Pincents Hill and Save Calcot Action Groups are arranging to have legal representation and need funds to do this. If you can make a contribution any and all funds would be gratefully accepted. If you would prefer to make a donation direct to the bank the details are as shown below – please let us know if you require a receipt.
From the Save Pincents Hill Campaign Group
West Berkshire Council rejected developer Blue Living’s plans to build an Eco-Town of 750 homes on Pincents Hill. However Blue Living are now appealing against this decision. If you don’t want Blue Living to build on Pincents Hill your letters against the development have to be received by the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol on or before 21st September. This is probably more important than the Planning Application itself.
Notes on the Appeal Process.
You can e-mail your comments direct to the case officer Leanne Palmer at leanne.palmer@pins.gsi.gov.uk which is easier than the process that West Berks has stated in this letter you must still quote the appeal references as shown below in your e-mail text. Alternatively you can write with the same reference number but you have to send 3 copies of your letter, whereas only 1 e-mail is needed. The address is: The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/26 Hawk Wing, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN
Please, do make the effort to write a letter to show that local residents care. You don’t even need a stamp because the person who dropped this flyer to you will call back to see if you have a letter for collection. If you cannot do three copies, please do not worry, just give one to the person collecting your letter, the Group will copy for you and send in Please see over
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SAMPLE LETTER, EITHER USE OR
BETTER STILL PUT IN YOUR OWN WORDS
Date: Name:
Telephone: Address
E-mail:
APPEAL REF. NO: APP/W0340/A/10/2133957/NWF -
APPEAL BY BLUE LIVING, A BARRON & Ms P PLATT –
LAND OFF PINCENTS LANE, TILEHURST, READING, BERKS.
To whom it may concern,
I am/We are writing to strongly object to this application as it contravenes many policies of West Berkshire’s planning legislation. The site is a unique greenfield site which needs to be protected for its own sake and it is not included in the Local Development Plan: It is currently used as an amenity countryside area with many species of wildlife; it forms part of a wildlife corridor and a strategic gap between the areas of Tilehurst, Calcot and Theale thereby preserving the identity and character of these areas. It is an ancient Landmark site. There is already a severe lack of recreational/amenity space in the area.
The proposed development is not sustainable; no provision is made for secondary education. Traffic has reached saturation levels on the Bath Road and Junction 12 of the M4 at peak times and increased traffic resulting from this development would put children at risk as there are two Primary Schools and Little Heath Secondary School in the adjoining roads. There are insufficient parking spaces and the increased traffic has been calculated based on 1.1 cars per household, when the local average is just over 1.4 hence figures are incorrectly calculated. Walking distances to local train stations have also been underestimated.
Please insert any other reasons you may wish to be made known – some suggestions are on the reverse of this letter:
I/we imagine you will receive many similar objections from other residents living nearby and I trust you will refuse this application on the basis that they most definitely contravene the planning regulations.
Please can you confirm to me that you have received this letter and have logged it as an official objection and keep me informed as to the outcome.
Yours faithfully,
------------------------------
Please note that if you would like to speak at the Enquiry to express your views then please put this in your letter. (nb It is possible you may be cross examined by a Barrister acting for Blue Living if you speak).
Reasons for objections (Summary) in descending order of success factors
a) Is it building on green field space?
b) Turned down by Planning Committee – examine and quote the reasons
c) Is it out of Character with the area?
d) Is it building on private green space that adds to a feeling of spaciousness and amenity recreation use?
e) Is traffic access dangerous/inadequate?
f) Will the development encourage on-street parking especially in adjacent roads – existing residents already threatened with permits to park outside their homes?
g) Loss of wildlife corridor
h) Loss of Strategic Gap between villages of Theale, Calcot and Tilehurst thereby resulting in loss of identity and merging into large urban complex
i) This area of land not included in the Local Development Plan.
j) Some local bus services axed and incorrect assumptions on walking times and distances to Rail Stations.
k) Demolition and destruction of part of ancient hedgerows and many mature trees, loss of valuable habitat to flora and fauna with may protected species (badgers (believed to be one of the biggest groups of sets in the area), pipistrel bats, slow worms, moths, red kites, yellow hammers not to mention deer, foxes, voles and field mice) and it is not known exactly how many other threatened species there are.
l) The development as drawn would even by CABE’s standards (this is the Government’s architectural advisory body) not integrate with the rest of the area, virtually making it a ghetto.
Reasons that are worth mentioning
a) Impact on traffic –the council has to take account of cumulative effect! (Bath Road, reached saturation point – City Road – impact on schools and possible injury to children.
b) Inadequate education provisions for secondary school children as existing schools over subscribed.
c) Generally any development stretches health facilities in hospitals, water facilities in the area (Thames Water have stated that they cannot provide full pressure water to the development).
Reasons that carry no weight
a) Density of buildings – there is no limit to the number of dwellings per hectare.
b) Lack of parking spaces carries no weight if public transport services are good (definition 20 minutes to town centre). Maximum is 1.5 spaces per dwelling.
