Page 1 of 4

Update on Site Options

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 9:48 am
by cherhillres
In your update you say the Committee has been looking at other sites, other than the Park Lane option. Please could you provide further information on this to date?
Thank you

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:34 pm
by johncav
As we have previously said, the old Naafi site at Lower Compton is not available and we have heard directly from Hills to confirm this. We have continued to contact landowners in the western part of the village, those with land bordering the A4 and Marsh Lane. The response has been consistent.

The donation of a piece land, similar to that offered by Mr Ainslie, is out of the question.

The landowners, having less extensive holdings than Mr Ainslie, need all their land to support their activities and so an exchange of land (a piece of their land for the current hall site) is not feasible as a reduction in acreage would undermine their viability.

We will, nevertheless, continue to investigate all opportunities which present themselves and would encourage anybody with ideas or information about possible sites to contact the Steering Group HERE

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:19 am
by afslade
johncav wrote
The landowners, having less extensive holdings than Mr Ainslie, need all their land to support their activities and so an exchange of land (a piece of their land for the current hall site) is not feasible as a reduction in acreage would undermine their viability.


I would have thought that revenue from the sale of the existing village hall would form a crucial part in funding the new village hall, so why not explore with Mr Ainslie the possibility of using the Park Lane field as a bartering tool..? If any of the landowners have an appropriate piece of land which is similar in both use and area to the Park Lane field then surely a direct exchange could work... That way, the AONB remains totally uncompromised and our conservation area remains intact.

I am of course presuming that John's post was a reflection of actual feedback from the landowners consulted, not just a personal opinion.

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:29 pm
by johncav
afslade wrote:I am of course presuming that John's post was a reflection of actual feedback from the landowners consulted, not just a personal opinion.


Yes, my post reflects the feedback we have received from the landowners.

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:06 pm
by Simont
As we've said before, if anyone knows of a suitable piece of land please let us know. The chances of finding a similar sized piece is slim and for the owner to find the Park Lane site just as convenient for them, slimmer still. We do not know of such a site. We're not going to get anyone to carve the corner off a field at one end of the village and exchange it for a small piece of land at the other. In any case the North East side of Marsh Lane is also in the AONB and everything within the Cherhill Area to the South of the A4 is also in the AONB. The only bit that isn't is on the South West side of Marsh Lane and we've approached that owner who has said no.

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:15 pm
by bramble Combe
I think you'll find that land being offered to the east of Park Lane is not within the Conservation Area and, as Simont says, just about all of Cherhill is within the AONB.

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:23 pm
by cherhillres
Park Lane is within the Conservation Area. Has there been any comment from the Highways Dept about alterations needed to this in order to accomodate a community facility? The proximity of the Park Lane site to the Cherhill Down, White Horse & Lansdowne Monument means it has a far more significant impact on the AONB than other less sensitive sites.

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:28 am
by Simont
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.

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:51 am
by cherhillres
I can't see how carving up a quiet rural lane in a conservation area is the best option.. this will significantly impact on the village.

What will stop people from approaching from the other end of Park Lane rather than using the A4? Will it be another 'voluntarily' one way system and if so what happens to the heavy farm vehicles? Would they use The Street?

Re: Update on Site Options

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:25 pm
by leah11
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?