Update on Site Options

At the junction of the A4 and Park Lane. Discuss it here....
concerned resident
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby concerned resident » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:06 am

Simont wrote:The field on Park Lane is not in the Conservation area.

We have taken advice on highways matters. We have been advised that creating a new access road off the A4 to meet the latest regulations would be difficult given the size of splay lines we would need and the proximity to other junctions. Marsh Lane would also be very difficult. We need two way traffic flow to any potential site but Marsh lane is too narrow in many parts for that and it would be impractical to attempt to widen a large length of lane as it would involve encroaching into people's gardens. Also Marsh Lane has an unrestricted speed limit (according to the law you can do 60 mph on there) and so creating a new entrance would be more difficult. From a highways point of view Park Lane is by far the best site. Two way traffic could easily be achieved on Park Lane as far as the gate with a small amount of road widening. Its close proximity to the A4 also greatly reduces access impact compared to Marsh Lane for example.


Park Lane is used extensively by farm vehicles, combined harvesters, tractors etc. Delivery vehicles include articulated HGV lorries and milk collection tankers - is this really a village lane that needs more traffic or can this traffic be diverted through the village!!!!! Don't think so!!!!!! Is this carving up of a small village lane really necessary and in the interest of the village as a whole, to achieve a village hall with lots of car parking spaces and excess noise just to accommodate users from outside of the village.

Does the existing village hall not pay its way as being a CHARITY I was under the impression that it only has to cover its costs plus maintenance etc. Surely the cost of extensive groundwork and building a new Village Hall is going to cost a HUGE amount of money and therefore the costs of hiring out the hall to anyone will have to be increased greatly from the rates that people currently enjoy!!!!!!

If people need larger hall facilities then the Town Hall in Calne and the Village Hall at Compton Bassett are both advertising space to rent. Why does Cherhill need such a large village hall and a huge car park when there are lots of facilities already in the area.

johncav
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:58 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby johncav » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:14 pm

leah11 wrote:If the field on Park Lane is not in the Conservation area, which I happen to know it was when I moved here some 20 years ago, could you clarify when it was taken out of the Conservation area, and if it was swapped for another area of land the other side of the Village?


The field on Park lane is not in the conservation area and the details are available for everyone to read HERE. Go to Page 6 and you'll see that the current situation dates from public consultation in 1998.

concerned resident
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby concerned resident » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:40 pm

Yes we know that but the question was - 'when was the field removed from the Conservation Area'. We have also been led to believe that the conservation area ends on the boundary of the field adjacent to Park Lane. The hedgerow of which will have to be removed if your road widening scheme goes ahead

johncav
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:58 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby johncav » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:11 pm

concerned resident wrote:Yes we know that but the question was - 'when was the field removed from the Conservation Area'.


I'm sorry, but I really don't know how to make this any plainer. The field was never in the conservation area. This is what the reference I quoted above says:

Cherhill had a small Conservation Area centred round the Church and Manor House.
In 1998 after public consultation and at a public meeting, it was agreed that the
conservation area would be extended to include more of the village, to give added
weight to planning considerations when decisions about developments were being
made. The enlarged Conservation Area included most of the listed buildings and
other buildings of historic interest in the village.


...a map shows that the field was not included in the conservation area.

Image

I hope that makes it clear

concerned resident
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby concerned resident » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:40 pm

johncav wrote:
concerned resident wrote:Yes we know that but the question was - 'when was the field removed from the Conservation Area'.


I'm sorry, but I really don't know how to make this any plainer. The field was never in the conservation area. This is what the reference I quoted above says:

Cherhill had a small Conservation Area centred round the Church and Manor House.
In 1998 after public consultation and at a public meeting, it was agreed that the
conservation area would be extended to include more of the village, to give added
weight to planning considerations when decisions about developments were being
made. The enlarged Conservation Area included most of the listed buildings and
other buildings of historic interest in the village.


...a map shows that the field was not included in the conservation area.

Image

I hope that makes it clear




I attach an image from page 9 of the Cherhill Conservation Area Statement prepared in collaboration with a local Working Party who comprised of Councillors D.T. Grafton, Mrs. M. Angell, D. Evans, G. Eves, T. Browne and Mr. A. Ainslie.

Page 9 of this Statement shows that Mr. Ainslie's field had been in the Conservation Area and was subsequently removed in 1999.

chehrill smaller maybe.jpg
chehrill smaller maybe.jpg (67.11 KiB) Viewed 7754 times

concerned resident
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby concerned resident » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:41 pm

Sorry the writing is blurred but on Mr. Ainslie's land it states - Area removed from the Conservation Area!! If you or anyone else knows this to be wrong please inform me. Thank you

johncav
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:58 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby johncav » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:53 pm

concerned resident wrote:Sorry the writing is blurred but on Mr. Ainslie's land it states - Area removed from the Conservation Area!! If you or anyone else knows this to be wrong please inform me. Thank you


I was able to show your post to Messrs Evans and Grafton this evening and piece together, with their help, the full story.

What you have shown is a draft prepared as part of the conservation area expansion which was underway in the late 90s: the working group's efforts and the public consultation that followed is outlined, as I stated earlier, HERE.

The draft, if adopted, would have placed the Park Lane field inside the conservation area but the draft was amended. At the request of the Conservation Officer of N Wilts County Council the field was excluded from the conservation area: this is reflected in the map referred to in my post above and remains the situation today.

My statement stands. The Park Lane field has never been in the Cherhill conservation area.

leah11
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:55 am

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby leah11 » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:44 pm

This was a design statement. It was never a draft and was given to all Villagers in 1999. At no time did the word "draft" appear, and it was used as a reference when any plans were being prepared.

concerned resident
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby concerned resident » Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:41 pm

leah11 wrote:This was a design statement. It was never a draft and was given to all Villagers in 1999. At no time did the word "draft" appear, and it was used as a reference when any plans were being prepared.



Page 1 of Cherhill Conservation Area Statement shows this document was prepared by a local working party and the unit printing cost was £3.55 in December 1999.

Why did they go to so such trouble to print these expensive documents if they were just a 'draft'

Please see below:-
Attachments
Cherhill doc page 1 1st.jpg
Cherhill doc page 1 1st.jpg (65 KiB) Viewed 7706 times

johncav
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:58 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby johncav » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:28 pm

It may help to understand the status of the document. Villages prepare (draft) statements like this to indicate their concerns, priorities and preferences to both residents and the planning authorities, the latter having the final say over changes. The hope of the village drafting the statement is that the views expressed will be shared by the planning authority and will be adopted as policy. In the case of the document above, the village drafted an extension to the conservation area but this was not accepted in full by the planning authority, the Conservation Officer asked for the Park Lane field to be removed from the (draft) enlarged conservation area. As local authorities are responsible for designating conservation areas their view prevails. The field was removed from the draft and the enlarged conservation area was then designated. I hope that explains fully why the Park Lane field was never in the conservation area, despite the drafted aspirations in the document you quote.


Return to “The Site”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron