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 » Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:32 pm

johncav wrote: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.



Thank you

afslade
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby afslade » Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:29 am

Simon...
Having read the letter from Andrew Ainslie regarding the gift of land for the development of the new Village Hall, there appears no mention of what happens to the land should, for whatever reason the referendum reflect a no-go result..?
Does the gift of land still go ahead, is it held in abeyance or is the offer simply rescinded..?

Apologies if this question has been covered elsewhere...

Simont
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:25 am

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby Simont » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:07 pm

The Ainslie family have made clear that the gift of land is being made solely for the purpose of building a new village hall. If the project does not go ahead for whatever reason then they will retain ownership.

Simon

afslade
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby afslade » Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:53 pm

In the December 2016 update you identified several project achievements, among them the completion of initial archaeological and ecological surveys... Clearly the bad timing of the geophysical survey (Jan 2016) meant that the TALITS report was inconclusive, indicating that the ground conditions (being very wet) may have hampered the detection of previously known buildings and other features of archaeological significance. TALITS recommendation was "Although no finds or features were identified by the survey the area remains one of considerable archaeological interest." Can you please clarify the current situation and your plans to resolve it.

You mentioned in the update that your best guess for the referendum would be in 10 months (at the earliest), so doesn't this situation warrant a second survey sometime in the dry season, sometime soon.

Simont
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:25 am

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby Simont » Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:00 pm

Because of the inconclusive results the County Archaeologist has asked for three trial trenches to be dug. This work will take place on Monday 27th and possibly Tuesday 28th.

afslade
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby afslade » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:02 pm

You'd be well advised to tell a few Park Lane residents about that or else they'll be all over you like a rash, or am I the only one that doesn't know..?

afslade
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby afslade » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:37 am

Into the third year of the project, £55,000 already spent, referendum anticipated in less than one year..!
Why was this potential issue not put to bed in 2016, it seems rather late in the day to be digging trenches in an area of "considerable archaeological interest" and within an AONB, clearly you don't see this as anything that might jeopardize the project timescale. Who will oversee this ground disturbance..?

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

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby leah11 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:47 pm

Yet
again, why do I expect anything else, being the adjoining landowner, no mention of this happening. Surely, even common courtesy should prevail!!

afslade
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby afslade » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:33 pm

-
Absolutely right leah11...

Simon you can't say I didn't warn you... Why is it your normal practice to inform residents after an event has begun rather than give warning it is soon to happen? Presumably if the event in question may be considered objectionable then the belated surprise element reduces any opportunity for an on-site protestation or event disruption, do you think anyone is going to chain themselves to the gatepost to prevent entry into the field.
If that is not the reason then why wouldn't you provide advanced warning of such events..?

Examples..? You posted the following on Facebook, while the author is not identified I am presuming it came from you (the Steering Group), I am conscious of Facebook copyright infringements so will offer up just the dates of a number of example posts
Source: Find us on Facebook @anewvillagehallforcherhill under subheading Posts

15.09.2015 "We had hoped that the topographical..."
08.10.2015 "Good Morning Everyone. Just letting..."
14.12.2015 "You may see some activity in the..."
07.01.2016 "More activity in the Park Lane field..."

You are now under instruction to dig three trial trenches in the field which is planned to take place in less than four days time, only by coincidence did I ask the question that prompted you into providing this information... I also asked in an earlier post who would oversee this dig and have yet to receive a response, on that basis I intend to contact the County Archaeologist (Melanie Pomeroy-Kellinger, I believe) to explain my concerns and ask if one of her team is available for a watching brief.

Simont
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:25 am

Re: Update on Site Options

Postby Simont » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:09 am

As with previous activity in the field we will inform the village what is going on. I can't see why it should be considered controversial and it isn't going to affect anyone.

We have engaged a firm of professional archaeologists working to a method statement agreed with Melanie. Melanie herself has said she plans to visit the site at some point.


Return to “The Site”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron