Comments for Emsworth Fights Back http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback Protecting Emsworth's green spaces from development. Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:55:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 Comment on Comment on the LDF Allocations Plan proposals by S Crozier http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?p=15#comment-20 S Crozier Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:54:44 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?p=15#comment-20 Proposal to build houses on the land opposite the Brookfield Hotel in Emsworth a. This land is currently used as a horse paddock and is an attractive feature of the west end of Emsworth and is worth preserving as it one a dwindling number of open spaces in the village. b. Building on the last few open spaces in Emsworth will destroy the village and turn into just another urban sprawl. c. The infrastructure in Emsworth cannot cope with such a large increase in housing, particularly the main A259 Havant road. e. Flooding risk will be substantially increased as the open spaces provide essential drainage and act as flood plains during storms surges. Proposal to build houses on the land opposite the Brookfield Hotel in Emsworth
a. This land is currently used as a horse paddock and is an attractive feature of the west end of Emsworth and is worth preserving as it one a dwindling number of open spaces in the village.
b. Building on the last few open spaces in Emsworth will destroy the village and turn into just another urban sprawl.
c. The infrastructure in Emsworth cannot cope with such a large increase in housing, particularly the main A259 Havant road.
e. Flooding risk will be substantially increased as the open spaces provide essential drainage and act as flood plains during storms surges.

]]> Comment on Public Forum at Meeting 10 April by rcobbett http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=10#comment-19 rcobbett Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:34:47 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=10#comment-19 Planning in the UK has tradionally been top down-the government sets its expectations based on population growth and other demographic trends and then expects the planning process to deliver. Conservative as well as Labour do this. PUSH decided it was better to be proactive than wait to be told what to do and launched a series of studies through consultant like DTZ to work out how much housing growth would be needed to meet the sub regional economic growth targets. Havant, being one of the 11 authorities, played its part. It was decided that 80,000 houses should be the top number and what followed was a debate on how this might be shared. Havant, it appears, settled for 6301, 1500 of which would be built on green field sites. We see that a substantial proportion of this number could end up in our gaps. The government's guidance was that at least 60% of new homes should be brown on field sites. Havant exceeds this with over 70% projected to urban sites around the Borough. Far from being a case of happless Havant being pushed around by some Prescottian monster, the PUSH model provided for its members a fair degree of discretion. If Havant settled for 6301 then it's to the Civic Centre we must look rather than to Whitehall. I doubt however that this any difference to the outcomes in the forthcoming elections. Planning in the UK has tradionally been top down-the government sets its expectations based on population growth and other demographic trends and then expects the planning process to deliver. Conservative as well as Labour do this. PUSH decided it was better to be proactive than wait to be told what to do and launched a series of studies through consultant like DTZ to work out how much housing growth would be needed to meet the sub regional economic growth targets. Havant, being one of the 11 authorities, played its part. It was decided that 80,000 houses should be the top number and what followed was a debate on how this might be shared. Havant, it appears, settled for 6301, 1500 of which would be built on green field sites. We see that a substantial proportion of this number could end up in our gaps.
The government’s guidance was that at least 60% of new homes should be brown on field sites. Havant exceeds this with over 70% projected to urban sites around the Borough. Far from being a case of happless Havant being pushed around by some Prescottian
monster, the PUSH model provided for its members a fair degree of discretion. If Havant settled for 6301 then it’s to the Civic Centre we must look rather than to Whitehall. I doubt however that this any difference to the outcomes in the forthcoming elections.

]]> Comment on Public Forum at Meeting 10 April by David Jones http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=10#comment-18 David Jones Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:14:41 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=10#comment-18 As far as it is possible to gauge, the responsibility for this excessive development required of the Borough must lie with Whitehall, and we are responding to plans for our 'share'. Each layer of gov't may have applied its criteria with, or without, the best will, but there seems to be no evidence of any consideration of the impact at the lowest level, eg HBC, until the superior levels have completed their part. By this time, there is no opportunity for any rethink, by HBC, let alone by those for whom HBC exists to serve. Thus, in relative terms, we are reduced to nitpicking, even though the details, as they affect residents and all others at the end of the chain, are bound to have major consequences to localities. HBC, with its back to the wall, has to obey instructions, from 'above'; only then may it try and find the best compromise, if one exists. However it seems to me that HBC should be expected to receive all our comments and proposals and 'push' them up the line as far as they can without feeling that they are necessarily the real cause of every difficult option placed before us. As far as it is possible to gauge, the responsibility for this excessive development required of the Borough must lie with Whitehall, and we are responding to plans for our ’share’. Each layer of gov’t may have applied its criteria with, or without, the best will, but there seems to be no evidence of any consideration of the impact at the lowest level, eg HBC, until the superior levels have completed their part. By this time, there is no opportunity for any rethink, by HBC, let alone by those for whom HBC exists to serve. Thus, in relative terms, we are reduced to nitpicking, even though the details, as they affect residents and all others at the end of the chain, are bound to have major consequences to localities. HBC, with its back to the wall, has to obey instructions, from ‘above’; only then may it try and find the best compromise, if one exists.
However it seems to me that HBC should be expected to receive all our comments and proposals and ‘push’ them up the line as far as they can without feeling that they are necessarily the real cause of every difficult option placed before us.

]]> Comment on Comment on the LDF Allocations Plan proposals by J Fox http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?p=15#comment-17 J Fox Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:32:59 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?p=15#comment-17 Filling gaps and fresh building on the sites proposed a. Destroys the inherent value of the town by amalgamating with adjacent developed ares, thus making a vast suburb b. The infrastructure to support such an infrease does not exist. Sewers and water can be connected, with vast disruption but schooling, medical facilities take years to restructure. c. Increased traffic on already over used roads. Existing roads cannot be modified to take projected extra traffic and holdups at junction will cause potentially dangerous situations.We only have village roads here Filling gaps and fresh building on the sites proposed
a. Destroys the inherent value of the town by amalgamating with adjacent developed ares, thus making a vast suburb
b. The infrastructure to support such an infrease does not exist. Sewers and water can be connected, with vast disruption but schooling, medical facilities take years to restructure.
c. Increased traffic on already over used roads. Existing roads cannot be modified to take projected extra traffic and holdups at junction will cause potentially dangerous situations.We only have village roads here

]]> Comment on General comments on development in Havant Borough by Richard http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-16 Richard Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:59:08 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-16 This is a nice thought Pene. Unfortunately as far as I can assess the News article refers to the Riders Lane allotment site which is included in the list of possible sites (ref L83) so they would be counted in the allocation. I think HBC have been pretty thorough in identifying potential sites such as this. We need to concentrate on saying why our particular pieces of land are not the best places to put houses. They need 56% of the identified possible greenfield sites to meet their allocation. We need to ensure the most suitable are chosen. Arguing about overall numbers only dissipates out energy. Sorry to pour cold water. Richard This is a nice thought Pene.

Unfortunately as far as I can assess the News article refers to the Riders Lane allotment site which is included in the list of possible sites (ref L83) so they would be counted in the allocation. I think HBC have been pretty thorough in identifying potential sites such as this.

We need to concentrate on saying why our particular pieces of land are not the best places to put houses. They need 56% of the identified possible greenfield sites to meet their allocation. We need to ensure the most suitable are chosen. Arguing about overall numbers only dissipates out energy.

Sorry to pour cold water.

Richard

]]> Comment on General comments on development in Havant Borough by Pene Salter http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-15 Pene Salter Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:49:47 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-15 Can we assume these extra homes shown below will come off the HBC total housing numbers in the LDF? News 12 March 12 March 2008 headline = Sale of Allottments 112 homes, precis = HBC are set to give Portsmouth City Council planning permission to build 112 homes on the site which is 'poor land' HBC currently lease the land for £24/year until 2053, and HBC would receive up to £1.3m - Can we assume these extra homes shown below will come off the HBC total housing numbers in the LDF?

News 12 March 12 March 2008
headline = Sale of Allottments 112 homes, precis = HBC are set to give Portsmouth City Council planning permission to build 112 homes on the site which is ‘poor land’

HBC currently lease the land for £24/year until 2053, and HBC would receive up to £1.3m -

]]> Comment on General comments on development in Havant Borough by Pene Salter Birch Tree Drive http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-14 Pene Salter Birch Tree Drive Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:07:25 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-14 The 2008 population forecast for Havant Borough is 117997, therefore the 551 responses used to justify preferred options for Greenfield Housing being dispersed is entirely unrepresentative of our population at less than ½ (half) of one percent The 2008 population forecast for Havant Borough is 117997, therefore the 551 responses used to justify preferred options for Greenfield Housing being dispersed is entirely unrepresentative of our population at less than ½ (half) of one percent

]]> Comment on General comments on development in Havant Borough by Pene Salter Birch Tree Drive http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-13 Pene Salter Birch Tree Drive Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:54:01 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-13 Yes Core Strat document printed today states 1499 - point is - HBC doc printed early March + amendment 5 March was 1381 total - my 2 printed copies do not give date or revision and whether 'final draft document'- has anything else changed? I don't know unless I compare each line. Lots of residents printed HBC docs several weeks ago! All businesses, particularly local government, must have a document control procedure! Where is it? Yes Core Strat document printed today states 1499 - point is - HBC doc printed early March + amendment 5 March was 1381 total - my 2 printed copies do not give date or revision and whether ‘final draft document’- has anything else changed? I don’t know unless I compare each line.

Lots of residents printed HBC docs several weeks ago!

All businesses, particularly local government, must have a document control procedure! Where is it?

]]> Comment on General comments on development in Havant Borough by Richard http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-12 Richard Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:12:23 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-12 This agrees with the analysis shown in the page 'How Many houses, How Much Space' the actual figure given for reference is 1499 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=19 This agrees with the analysis shown in the page ‘How Many houses, How Much Space’ the actual figure given for reference is 1499 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=19

]]> Comment on General comments on development in Havant Borough by Pene Salter Birch Tree Drive http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-11 Pene Salter Birch Tree Drive Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:20:25 +0000 http://www.emsworthresidents.co.uk/fightback/?page_id=3#comment-11 Core Strategy Preferred Options now shows in section 4.0 Housing differences in table and increased numbers for total housing - 1500(it's gone up again). My original printed in January, and updated after HBC Extraordinary Exec Mtg on 5th March. Where is document control, draft is undated, amendments not noted, revisions (A/B/C or 1/2/3)must be documented - ISO 9001 Whilst constructing my response to the Core Strategy it's "spot the difference" - and my arguments could be rejected as inaccurate, particularly if I mention numbers Point to be made in responses Core Strategy Preferred Options now shows in section 4.0 Housing differences in table and increased numbers for total housing - 1500(it’s gone up again). My original printed in January, and updated after HBC Extraordinary Exec Mtg on 5th March.

Where is document control, draft is undated, amendments not noted, revisions (A/B/C or 1/2/3)must be documented - ISO 9001

Whilst constructing my response to the Core Strategy it’s “spot the difference” - and my arguments could be rejected as inaccurate, particularly if I mention numbers

Point to be made in responses

]]>