megilleland Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 While out today I came across this planning notice on Waterfield Road proposing the construction of a car park. When I attended the public meeting at Eastholme before Christmas I got the impression that most of the gathering were against the car park being situated here, especially the anglers, as it was too far from the Belmont Ponds. The anglers would have liked a car park off Haywood Lane closer to the ponds. Has this application being advertised in the local press as you can easily miss the notice on the lamp post.The letters in the box on the planning application state the application is a planning application and affects a public right of way, agreed. However at the bottom of the application are further letters and D catches my eye as this would state that the proposed development does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan. Is the development plan the same as the Unitary Development Plan? In which case because this land is protected public open space I would have assumed that any development would not be allowed. Has anyone else been consulted about this proposal? Any comments to the council by 3rd February 2012.
Frank Smith Posted January 27, 2012 Report Posted January 27, 2012 Haywood Lane is surely the most logical place?
lpusseycat Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 Haywood Lane is surely the most logical place? We all know this but certain people are determined to agnore the wishes of the residents who have not been consulted.They are determined to have this carpark and waste some of the 200,000 pounds for a carpark that no body wants.There is a layby in Waterfield road for about 5 cars which is never fully used. Where as a layby in Haywood lane would be more usefull to visiters to the wild flower meadow and the picnic area and the observation platform next to the pond and this layby can also be used by the visiters to Newton coppice wood as at the moment you have to park in the bus stop.
lpusseycat Posted February 1, 2012 Report Posted February 1, 2012 We all know this but certain people are determined to agnore the wishes of the residents who have not been consulted.They are determined to have this carpark and waste some of the 200,000 pounds for a carpark that no body wants.There is a layby in Waterfield road for about 5 cars which is never fully used. Where as a layby in Haywood lane would be more usefull to visiters to the wild flower meadow and the picnic area and the observation platform next to the pond and this layby can also be used by the visiters to Newton coppice wood as at the moment you have to park in the bus stop. After talking to the residents around the area were they want the car park only 2 had letters off the planners all the rest including the residents in the Bird Sanctary knew nothing about it so did they consult the local residents NO. And not 1 of those people want it at waterfield road and said why not up by Belmont pond were it is needed. After talking to the residents around the area were they want the car park only 2 had letters off the planners all the rest including the residents in the Bird Sanctary knew nothing about it so did they consult the local residents NO. And not 1 of those people want it at waterfield road and said why not up by Belmont pond were it is needed.
megilleland Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Posted February 7, 2012 Representations concerning the construction of the above car park can be read on Herefordshire Council website at http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/housing/planning/58286.aspx?ID=113513. Click on Representations to open documents. Interesting to note that several residents affected by this development have raised various concerns. Not surprising that the council departments consulted have no objections, but give no reasons how they arrive at their decision. Also Hereford City Parish Council which represents Newton Farm has no objection to the car park construction. There is also some debate that this car park does not need planning permission - is this true?
Glenda Powell Posted February 7, 2012 Report Posted February 7, 2012 Representations concerning the construction of the above car park can be read on Herefordshire Council website at http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/housing/planning/58286.aspx?ID=113513. Click on Representations to open documents. Interesting to note that several residents affected by this development have raised various concerns. Not surprising that the council departments consulted have no objections, but give no reasons how they arrive at their decision. Also Hereford City Parish Council which represents Newton Farm has no objection to the car park construction. There is also some debate that this car park does not need planning permission - is this true? I met up with planning dept/ Park & countryside officer and representative of Amey on site this afternoon. I am aware that both yourself and Mrs Lynch has spoken to the planning officer, also that there is a petition objecting to the car park doing the rounds, it has been noted on the petition that various names have been entered for the same address on two occasions where it is known that only two people live at the said address. The land belongs to Herefordshire Council therefore the planning application is theirs. The planning application WILL go to the planning committee this month where it will be debated and voted on by the councillors on that committee after hearing ALL evidence for and against the application. I have voiced my concerns in relation to the antisocial behaviour that happens at the Ball Court and the siting of the car park near by, I have asked that if the planning application is successful that the area of the car park is fenced off and locked at night.
lpusseycat Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 I met up with planning dept/ Park & countryside officer and representative of Amey on site this afternoon. I am aware that both yourself and Mrs Lynch has spoken to the planning officer, also that there is a petition objecting to the car park doing the rounds, it has been noted on the petition that various names have been entered for the same address on two occasions where it is known that only two people live at the said address. The land belongs to Herefordshire Council therefore the planning application is theirs. The planning application WILL go to the planning committee this month where it will be debated and voted on by the councillors on that committee after hearing ALL evidence for and against the application. I have voiced my concerns in relation to the antisocial behaviour that happens at the Ball Court and the siting of the car park near by, I have asked that if the planning application is successful that the area of the car park is fenced off and locked at night. How dare you suggest this petition was done in a underhand manner and which names are duplicated .The petition was done properly and the people living at the addresses signed it so I don't know why you have said that.Get your facts straight before before writing them. Nobody wants it at waterfield road it needs to be up by Belmont Ponds, we will let the Planning Committee decide the application.
Glenda Powell Posted February 8, 2012 Report Posted February 8, 2012 How dare you suggest this petition was done in a underhand manner and which names are duplicated .The petition was done properly and the people living at the addresses signed it so I don't know why you have said that.Get your facts straight before before writing them. Nobody wants it at waterfield road it needs to be up by Belmont Ponds, we will let the Planning Committee decide the application. The comment made about the names on petition was what I was advised by the officers present yesterday who have seen the petition, I have not with a small petition ( I understand 40 signatures) the names / address's are checked for authenticity. Get your facts straight IT IS NOT the planning committee who decides whether the application is accepted but the councillors on the planning committee.Just for clarification as the land belongs to the council it does not need to go to planning committee, and in the circumstances very rarely does. It is going to committee BECAUSE I ASK FOR IT TO GO THERE!!!
megilleland Posted February 8, 2012 Author Report Posted February 8, 2012 Just for clarification as the land belongs to the council it does not need to go to planning committee, and in the circumstances very rarely does. Not quite true. Specified categories of minor or insignificant development are granted an automatic planning permission by law, and therefore do not require any application for planning permission. These categories are referred to as permitted development. In the case of any proposal for development there is therefore a two stage test: "is the proposal development at all?" and, if the proposal is development, "is it permitted development?" Only if a development is not permitted development would an application for planning permission be required. Herefordshire Council by advertising the car park planning application on the lamp post and in a local newspaper would suggest that it is not permitted development. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 allows local authorities to carry out certain developments specified in schedule 2 of the order. PART 12 - DEVELOPMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES in schedule 2 states: Class A Permitted development A. The erection or construction and the maintenance, improvement or other alteration by a local authority or by an urban development corporation of (a) any small ancillary building, works or equipment on land belonging to or maintained by them required for the purposes of any function exercised by them on that land otherwise than as statutory undertakers; (b) lamp standards, information kiosks, passenger shelters, public shelters and seats, telephone boxes, fire alarms, public drinking fountains, horse troughs, refuse bins or baskets, barriers for the control of people waiting to enter public service vehicles, and similar structures or works required in connection with the operation of any public service administered by them. Interpretation of Class A A.1 For the purposes of Class A “urban development corporation†has the same meaning as in Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980(4) (urban development). A.2 The reference in Class A to any small ancillary building, works or equipment is a reference to any ancillary building, works or equipment not exceeding 4 metres in height or 200 cubic metres in capacity. Car parks are not specifically listed. The omission of car parks above is supported in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for open space, sport and recreation which states: Developments within Open Spaces 16. The recreational quality of open spaces can be eroded by insensitive development or incremental loss of the site. In considering planning applications - either within or adjoining open space - local authorities should weigh any benefits being offered to the community against the loss of open space that will occur. Planning authorities may wish to allow small scale structures where these would support the existing recreational uses (for example, interpretation centres, toilets, and refreshment facilities), or would provide facilities for new recreational uses. They should seek to ensure that all proposed development takes account of, and is sensitive to, the local context. 17. Local authorities should: i. avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the character of open spaces; ii. ensure that open spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic flows or other encroachment; iii. protect and enhance those parts of the rights of way network that might benefit open space; and iv. consider the impact of any development on biodiversity and nature conservation. Having asked some questions and made some comments in my representation concerning this planning application, it would be polite if the council could respond to these items as I have heard nothing to date.
Glenda Powell Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Not quite true. Specified categories of minor or insignificant development are granted an automatic planning permission by law, and therefore do not require any application for planning permission. These categories are referred to as permitted development. In the case of any proposal for development there is therefore a two stage test: "is the proposal development at all?" and, if the proposal is development, "is it permitted development?" Only if a development is not permitted development would an application for planning permission be required. Herefordshire Council by advertising the car park planning application on the lamp post and in a local newspaper would suggest that it is not permitted development. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 allows local authorities to carry out certain developments specified in schedule 2 of the order. PART 12 - DEVELOPMENT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES in schedule 2 states: Class A Permitted development A. The erection or construction and the maintenance, improvement or other alteration by a local authority or by an urban development corporation of (a) any small ancillary building, works or equipment on land belonging to or maintained by them required for the purposes of any function exercised by them on that land otherwise than as statutory undertakers; (b) lamp standards, information kiosks, passenger shelters, public shelters and seats, telephone boxes, fire alarms, public drinking fountains, horse troughs, refuse bins or baskets, barriers for the control of people waiting to enter public service vehicles, and similar structures or works required in connection with the operation of any public service administered by them. Interpretation of Class A A.1 For the purposes of Class A “urban development corporation†has the same meaning as in Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980(4) (urban development). A.2 The reference in Class A to any small ancillary building, works or equipment is a reference to any ancillary building, works or equipment not exceeding 4 metres in height or 200 cubic metres in capacity. Car parks are not specifically listed. The omission of car parks above is supported in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for open space, sport and recreation which states: Developments within Open Spaces 16. The recreational quality of open spaces can be eroded by insensitive development or incremental loss of the site. In considering planning applications - either within or adjoining open space - local authorities should weigh any benefits being offered to the community against the loss of open space that will occur. Planning authorities may wish to allow small scale structures where these would support the existing recreational uses (for example, interpretation centres, toilets, and refreshment facilities), or would provide facilities for new recreational uses. They should seek to ensure that all proposed development takes account of, and is sensitive to, the local context. 17. Local authorities should: i. avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the character of open spaces; ii. ensure that open spaces do not suffer from increased overlooking, traffic flows or other encroachment; iii. protect and enhance those parts of the rights of way network that might benefit open space; and iv. consider the impact of any development on biodiversity and nature conservation. Having asked some questions and made some comments in my representation concerning this planning application, it would be polite if the council could respond to these items as I have heard nothing to date. Thank you for explaining what I already know in regard to planning procedures. Where you ask before does it need planning permission. As I explained, and for clarification when the land belongs to the local authority the application normally doesn't come to the planning committee as it is dealt with under delegated powers by the planning officers and it normally gets passed,so local members do not get the opportunity to speak whether they are for or against the application. Because I have concerns about this application as the local member living on Newton Farm and representing the people I ask for it to come to committee and my wish has been granted. Your other ward councillors who ask for the car park to be located in Waterfield road will possibly speak at the planning committee in favour of it although under the new planning procedures we are not allowed to vote on the application.
megilleland Posted February 14, 2012 Author Report Posted February 14, 2012 Attached here is the council's recommendation that the car park be approved at its planning meeting on the 22nd February 2012. All the reasons why it should not be built have been ignored and the affected residents will have to put up with more anti-social behaviour closer to their homes. The council officers list a variety of reasons why each objection submitted is not relevant. Read it and see if you agree.
megilleland Posted February 14, 2012 Author Report Posted February 14, 2012 In the report to the planning committee the police response was still awaited. This is now available under representations on the planning application or here. WMC reply to car park.pdf They don't seem to be very keen on the car park either.
Colin James Posted February 14, 2012 Report Posted February 14, 2012 In the report to the planning committee the police response was still awaited. This is now available under representations on the planning application or here. They don't seem to be very keen on the car park either. They do not seem to be keen at all and I can see why to be fair. Car Park should be around the other side (Haywood Lane). I am surprised that they have even come up with this current location proposal!
lpusseycat Posted February 14, 2012 Report Posted February 14, 2012 In the report to the planning committee the police response was still awaited. This is now available under representations on the planning application or here. They don't seem to be very keen on the car park either. The police report says it all.I picked up February's local policing newsletter and in it says Current Patrol Priorities, Belmont Haywood Country Park youths riding off road in the park and woods and Northholme Community Centre recent reports of litter and anti-social behavior no wonder the police are not keen on it.
Roger Edwards Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 I have heard that there is a plan for a lay-by along Haywood Lane to accommodate anglers, but I haven't seen any planning applications. Also is there a plan of the overall scheme as there is talk of a visitor centre, but no idea where it is proposed to put it. I understand a certain male Cllr is against it as he wants it of Waterfield Road. The answere is not to vote for this person.
Roger Edwards Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 They do not seem to be keen at all and I can see why to be fair. Car Park should be around the other side (Haywood Lane). I am surprised that they have even come up with this current location proposal! Its not what the public wants its what this person wanted. Logick and wishes of residents and fishermen does not apply. its all what he wants. Its a ploy to keep antisocal behaviour in Newton Farm.
Roger Edwards Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 Attached here is the council's recommendation that the car park be approved at its planning meeting on the 22nd February 2012. All the reasons why it should not be built have been ignored and the affected residents will have to put up with more anti-social behaviour closer to their homes. The council officers list a variety of reasons why each objection submitted is not relevant. Read it and see if you agree. I agree with you, watch out for the antisocial behaviour
Roger Edwards Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 I met up with planning dept/ Park & countryside officer and representative of Amey on site this afternoon. I am aware that both yourself and Mrs Lynch has spoken to the planning officer, also that there is a petition objecting to the car park doing the rounds, it has been noted on the petition that various names have been entered for the same address on two occasions where it is known that only two people live at the said address. The land belongs to Herefordshire Council therefore the planning application is theirs. The planning application WILL go to the planning committee this month where it will be debated and voted on by the councillors on that committee after hearing ALL evidence for and against the application. I have voiced my concerns in relation to the antisocial behaviour that happens at the Ball Court and the siting of the car park near by, I have asked that if the planning application is successful that the area of the car park is fenced off and locked at night. I bet the application is granted, because you know who wants it.
Glenda Powell Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 I understand a certain male Cllr is against it as he wants it of Waterfield Road. The answere is not to vote for this person. It is two male Cllrs not one.
Glenda Powell Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 Its not what the public wants its what this person wanted. Logick and wishes of residents and fishermen does not apply. its all what he wants. Its a ploy to keep antisocal behaviour in Newton Farm. It maybe what he wants, but it's not what I want, he has not got my support
Glenda Powell Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 I bet the application is granted, because you know who wants it. none of the local Cllrs have a vote. The police officer report does not form part of the planning papers for the meeting. I have pointed this out to the senior planning officer stating if the police report is not added the debate cannot happen or a decision made because ALL information will not be in front of the committee.
Adrian Bridges Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 As Local Ward Members we will have the opportunity to argue for or against the application and there is still some unanswered issued that I have asked to be clarified from the Officer prior to the Committee on the 22nd Feb.
Adrian Bridges Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Just to clarify - All Planning Proposals by Herefordshire Council do in fact come to Planning Committee as there is no authority for delegated powers for this to any Officer.
megilleland Posted February 19, 2012 Author Report Posted February 19, 2012 There is talk of locking the car park at night to secure it against anti-social behaviour. How is this going to help fisherman who want to fish at night. Maybe fishing is only going to be allowed during car park opening hours!
lpusseycat Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 As Local Ward Members we will have the opportunity to argue for or against the application and there is still some unanswered issued that I have asked to be clarified from the Officer prior to the Committee on the 22nd Feb. There seems to be only 1 person for this application it will be interesting to see what he has to say about it.And he wouldn't be for it if he had the Anti-social behaviour on his door step. I was reading the Belmont and Haywood country park newsletter and there is no mention of having a car park at Waterfield road, only about having a small car park or lay-by at Haywood Lane,which is where it should be put.
megilleland Posted February 20, 2012 Author Report Posted February 20, 2012 Looking at the crime figures for this area from the Police UK crime map we have had in 2011 a total of 138 anti-social behaviour issues, 16 vehicle crimes and 4 drug crimes (the drug figure only covers the last four months of the year). Putting this car park in Waterfield Road will only add to these figures for 2012.
megilleland Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Posted March 2, 2012 No one has thought about utilising this empty car park just down the road off Vernon Williams Close. The money saved on not building the proposed car park in Waterfield road would have allowed the existing cycle track to continue and link this existing car park to the country park.
lpusseycat Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 No one has thought about utilising this empty car park just down the road off Vernon Williams Close. The money saved on not building the proposed car park in Waterfield road would have allowed the existing cycle track to continue and link this existing car park to the country park. Good idea would save alot of money,as this carpark is already there.And is hardly used.
megilleland Posted August 15, 2012 Author Report Posted August 15, 2012 The work in Waterfield Road has been completed. Here are some photos showing the link to Haywood Country Park
Colin James Posted August 16, 2012 Report Posted August 16, 2012 I was not aware of that unused car park, so this new one is another complete waste of money.
Recommended Posts