Original Delivered Questionnaire

At the junction of the A4 and Park Lane. Discuss it here....
afslade
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby afslade » Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:23 pm

afslade wrote:

Is it possible that you could provide me with the contact details of your Highways consultant as I am looking for some advice/guidance on a couple of alternative access options I have been working on. I am sure I could find assistance but it seems sensible to speak with someone who is already familiar with the Village Hall project.


I clarified the question to the following

afslade wrote:

Is it possible for you to provide me with contact details of the Highways person with whom you have been consulting..? I am not at all interested in talking with the author of the Preliminary Access Report as I am not interested in commercial opinion, only the laws of the highway.


You have continually indicated that you are consulting with Highways, both formally and informally..! So, have you really..?
Above is my relatively simple question and I think it worthy of a straightforward and honest response. If you do not wish to provide me with such information then please just say so, if you are happy to do so but do not wish to post them here, then please email them to me.
Thank you

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby johncav » Sat Apr 09, 2016 11:55 am

afslade wrote:

Is it possible that you could provide me with the contact details of your Highways consultant


No. I explained why in my posts of 3rd and 7th April. We have not appointed a 'highways consultant' and we are dealing with organisations not individuals. I hope that is now clear

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby afslade » Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:37 pm

johncav wrote:

we are dealing with organisations not individuals.

If you are dealing with organisations formally then you must be communicating with persons (individuals) that represent those organisations, but if you are dealing with those same organisations informally then I'm not sure what the hell you are doing..!

Unsure why you didn't read and respond to my full post, instead choosing to be selective and evasive (credentials of a politician...)
Thank you for the clarification, I am now none the wiser..!
Regret asking for your assistance...

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby afslade » Thu May 19, 2016 8:16 pm

Simon, I have just read with interest the letter you received from Andrew Ainslie regarding the gift of land...
Is it possible you could clarify the following points please.

There are a number of conditions that we would want to put on this land transfer:
1. A covenant would be drawn up whereby the land could only be used for the development of a village hall and its parking.
2. The site would be appropriately landscaped and stock proof fenced around its boundary, and this would be maintained by your committee.


Regarding point 1.
Does this mean that visitor parking to the downs will not be permitted on the gifted site..?
Regarding point 2.
Is stock proof fencing required only on the eastern boundary or around the entire boundary..?

Thanks

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby Simont » Sat May 21, 2016 7:50 am

Alan
1. As you know the subject of parking has had much debate and will need more, e.g. Is there a practical way of preventing walkers using the car park that doesn't impact on the hall users. Andrew's objective with this covenant is to ensure that, having taken ownership of the site, we don't change our minds and decide to build houses instead.
2. My understanding is that he is only expecting the Eastern boundary to have stock proof fencing.

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby afslade » Mon May 23, 2016 6:55 pm

Simon,
You are correct about the need for a full-on parking debate... A 50 space car park is outrageous, not only does it account for almost 50% of the usable field area but seriously calls into question the accuracy of your recent post. This has a definite panto time feel about it...

simont wrote:
For the vast majority of the time the village hall creates very little traffic. During the day most events draw 5 or 6 cars certainly not enough to overflow the existing hall's parking spaces. The only exception I can think of is the Oldbury club lunch which might get 10 cars. Of course we are looking to increase the capacity of the hall by having a second, smaller hall. Let's take a worst case and say that we will have 10 cars entering the hall car park twice a day. I don't know how many cars use Park Lane each day now and some of those will be cars access the existing hall but this is not a significant increase in traffic.
Most evenings the numbers are similar or perhaps a little higher. Scouts and Beavers do create more traffic, perhaps 20 or so cars but many of these cars use Park Lane already so the increase in traffic is again not great. The big increase in traffic occurs at panto time or when there is a big event on. These occur for let say 20 days per year and almost all in the evening or weekend.


According to your commissioned Preliminary Access Report
1.6. Wiltshire Council’s guidance on parking requirements suggests a parking standard of 1 car parking space per 5 seats for halls and places of assembly.


On this basis 50 parking spaces equates to 250 hall seats, which is 35% of the village residency and doesn't even include those attendees that may walk.

You might also feel a need to clarify with Andrew Ainslie just how much of this field you are being gifted, it appears he and the other owners of the land are pleased to gift to the village a plot of land of approximately 0.27ha (0.67acres) as drawn up in the location plan no: 14-04-SK04 by Julian Taylor.

I suspect a typo, else its a village hall or a car park...

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby afslade » Wed May 25, 2016 3:24 pm

Have a couple of questions regarding the access and the building

The Lane appears to be wider between the A4 junction and the intended site access turning...
- if the Lane has been widened to a single carriageway road, please advise the new intended road width
- there is no indication of a pavement, if one is planned please advise which side of the road (east or west)

from Design image 9.jpg
from Design image 9.jpg (63.89 KiB) Viewed 2958 times



Please identify the intended roof covering material/substance

from Design image 10 .jpg
from Design image 10 .jpg (32.75 KiB) Viewed 2958 times


If this information is provided elsewhere please accept my apologies
Thank you

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby Simont » Wed May 25, 2016 4:25 pm

Alan

As you will recall from the meeting and discussions we've had I can't answer your first question until we have gone into more detail with the Highways department.

Again the detail of the roof covering is not fixed. If you are asking solely about the outer planted covering the most likely option will be a sedum matting similar to the sample we had at the open day. As I say though its not fixed.

If you are asking about the structural elements we have structural engineers starting to look at it but there is still work to do.
Simon

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby afslade » Wed May 25, 2016 4:32 pm

The question was "has it been widened on the drawing"

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

Re: Original Delivered Questionnaire

Postby Simont » Wed May 25, 2016 6:03 pm

I don't know but whatever is shown is subject to change. We will take advice from Highways on what they feel is the best solution.


Return to “The Site”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron