About this page:
This page is to hold general comments which have not been posted to more specific topics. Your comment will have more impact if it is posted to reply to an existing post or page. You can create a new post if you first register and log in.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I suppose we wouldn’t have started from here. The council appears to have agreed 6301 dwelling knowing that 1500 of them would go in greenfield sites and that most of this number would be planted in our precious gaps. It’s not so much whether it’s a good or bad thing but what the hell we can do about it. I gather that taking all the greenfield sites throughout the borough and assuming a medium density, we’re left with a surplus over need of just 15%. What we see is what we get is the message so all the objection has to be about infrastructure, sustainability and damage limitation. There is a potential for a legal review of the agreement made by the council with Lynton White Estates in the early nineties following the Locks Farm decision. In it the council and landowners pledged that land owned by them would be held in perpetuity for recreational purposes. And yet we now hear stories of the owners offering the council as much land as it wants. Um.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
A substantive and thorough ecological survey of all green field sites is required BEFORE sites are put on to development plans. There is a well established colony of bats (a protected species) in the North Emsworth. Bats feed in Redlands Lane and Birch Tree Drive - the roosting site is unknown. No attempts to establish the roost, to our knowledge, have ever been made, despite the common knowledge of the existence of a substantial roost.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Renewable Energy will be included on developments above 250 dwellings - we have no idea what they would be - laudible for renewable energy, however, suggest growing crops to use for fuel would be a better use of the land!
April 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
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
April 18th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
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
April 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
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?
April 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
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
April 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
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 -
April 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
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