Next JTP meeting – Wednesday 26th November

JTP, the planning team working with The Earl Bathurst on the proposed Chesterton Development, have publicised the latest meeting in the consultation process.  As previously suggested it is based on the transportation issues.

The meeting is scheduled for Bingham House Gallery, 1 Dyer St, Cirencester, GL7 2PP next Wednesday, 26th November from 10 a.m. to 2.30 p.m.  However the majority of the event will consist of site visits  – in the morning by minibus to key junctions and routes, whilst in the afternoon walking and cycling options take centre stage.

It was intended that interested parties should notify JTP of their wish to attend buy 19 November. Surely however,  JTP want to share their information with everyone and receive useful feedback to validate the process.  If – perhaps through lack of publicity – you missed the deadline, try contacting JTP representative Danielle Dove at dd@jtp.co.uk or Freephone 0800 0126730.

Based on the content of their letters to previous consultees and the format of the last meeting, it seems likely that the day’s event will contain few, if any, answers to residents’ fears over the proposed development. Most of the potential issues have already been highlighted ad nauseum, without any meaningful solutions being put forward.  Still, we can but hope…

 

 

Farming continues at Cirencester – for now

‘Save Our Cirencester’ are pleased to note that farming continues at Chesterton.  However,  it must not be taken that we are GULL-ible!

This agricultural use is of course no indication of a change of overall plan.  However it is to be welcomed that the land continues to be made use of, rather than left to accumulate weeds and become an eyesore.  

Consultation process

A further meeting was organised by JTP, held in the slightly cramped confines of the Bingham House Gallery, on 22nd October.

The meeting was in the form of a technical update on the various elements within the planned scheme – highways, archaeology, ecology, utilities and services.  Representatives of JTP and the relevant consultancies gave some information on the work/surveys carried out to date.

The timings allowed for little in the way of public comment – perhaps this was intentional?  It all seemed rather rushed to a number of the people present.  There was certainly disquiet in the room about the accuracy of the traffic survey, the visual display of which didn’t seem to reflect the actual volume of traffic experienced in the town.  SOC representatives are seeking to clarify whether the survey was conducted at a time when some schools/colleges were closed.  A further session is being set up on 26th November to look specifically at transport – further details will follow from JTP and be publicised on this website.

In short, the meeting did nothing to allay the concerns of townspeople about the proposed Chesterton development.  Equally, Lord Bathurst, who was present throughout, and JTP have no reason to believe that the views against the scheme are in any way diminished.

“We need enough productive agricultural land” – minister statement

The Environment Secretary, Liz Truss, has declared large-scale solar farms a blight on the landscape and plans a cut in subsidy to farmers and landowners.

Save Our Cirencester has noted concern from local residents over recent developments, plus further proposals for these, in our locality.

Ms Truss wants Britain “to lead the world in food and farming and to do that we need enough productive agricultural land”.  So no doubt, she would have sympathy with us in not wanting to have all of Chesterton Farm concreted over to  facilitate the huge proposed development.

See more information on this at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29679312

 

JTP Meeting – Wednesday 22 October

The next meeting organised by JTP will take place next Wednesday at Bingham House, details below.

This is the first meeting in the consultative process to take place since the Save Our Cirencester petition was presented to, and debated by, Cotswold District Council.

IT IS NOW VERY EVIDENT TO ALL THAT THE PEOPLE OF CIRENCESTER ARE UNHAPPY ABOUT THE PROPOSALS.  It may be expected that Save Our Cirencester representatives, as well as the general public, will press home this message to JTP and other interested parties. This will not be just another “rubber-stamping exercise”. Please use this opportunity to attend and reinforce the message.

The Save Our Cirencester group is happy to confirm that we are not against all development and the creation of local housing.  Our objection, as previously stated, concerns the scale of the proposed development and its impact upon the town, infrastructure and character of Cirencester.

(Meeting details according to the chestertoncirencester website and letters to individuals previously registering an interest)

“Land at Chesterton Community Forum

6.30pm – 8.30pm – Wednesday 22 October 2014

The Bingham House Gallery, 1 Dyer Street, Cirencester GL7 2PP

The next Land at Chesterton Community Forum will take place on Wednesday 22 October 2014 at The Bingham House Gallery. At the Forum, we will focus on the technical work which is being undertaken as part of the development of the proposals. There will be updates on highways, archaeology, ecology, utilities and services and the latest from the masterplanning team.

Forum programme:

• 6.30     Background exhibition opens
• 6.45     Technical update presentations
• 8.00      A chance to talk with design team consultants one-to-one
• 8.30     Close”

Press Coverage

The word is spreading – here are links to articles by the Gloucestershire Echo and the Wilts and Glos Standard, whose front page we made this week: http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/Pressure-builds-Cotswold-District-Council-change/story-22973096-detail/story.html

http://www.wiltsglosstandard.co.uk/news/11496218.Plans_to_build_thousands_of_new_homes

A fair and democratic process?

At Cotswold District Council’s full Council meeting on 23rd September, it was determined that the Save Our Cirencester petition be referred to it’s Cabinet for consideration as part of the next process of considering the Local Plan.

This in effect means that of the 44 elected members of Cotswold District Council, the decision on the future of Cirencester is likely to be the hands of the 6 current members of Cabinet (there is one vacancy). These six Councillors represent the following wards: Campden Vale (2), Ermin, Northleach, Hampton, Riversmeet.

If, like the author, you find Cotswold District Council’s website less than user-friendly, you may not be able to identify which towns and parishes these electoral wards cover.  I offer (for your correction if necessary) the following list:

Chipping Campden, Weston-sub-Edge, Willersey, Saintbury, Aston-sub-Edge, Mickleton, Ebrington, Brimpsfield, Cowley, Elkstone, Syde, Winstone, The Duntisbournes, Edgeworth, Daglingworth, Northleach, Hampnett, Driffield, Down Ampney, Poulton, Meysey Hampton, Coln St Aldwyns, Windrush, Eastleach, Aldsworth, Barrington, Sherborne, Farmington.

Granted, some of these are within a few miles of Cirencester.  BUT, I ask you, IS IT RIGHT THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR TOWN LIES IN THE HANDS OF THESE PEOPLE? DO THEY CARE ABOUT CIRENCESTER?

Shouldn’t at least the whole Council have a say, AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE OF CIRENCESTER?

Are your views being represented?

If the answer to the last question is “NO!” make your views known to Cotswold District Council.  Make your views known to your MP.  Make your views known and stand up for our Cirencester!

Petition offically received by Cotswold District Council

The Save Our Cirencester petition was handed to the Chairman of Cotswold District Council, Councillor Clive Bennett, during the Council Meeting today (23rd September). The number of signatures now totals 2,708.

Mark Pratley, speaking on behalf of the group, was allowed five minutes to speak in support of the petition.  Councillor Nicholas Parsons, Cabinet Member for Forward Planning, then had five minutes to respond before the matter was open for discussion by the full Council.  Thirty minutes were allotted for this, but the Chairman later extended this by a further fifteen.  Following a summing up by Mark and Cllr Parsons, the latter proposed that the matter be deferred for consideration by Cabinet as part of the next consultation process on the Local Plan.  On a show of hands by councillors, the proposal was passed.  The number of votes was not declared to the public, but the votes against were about 8 and apparently principally Liberal Democrat councillors.

Some comments which may be of interest were noted during the meeting as follows and may not be the exact wording unless included in quotation marks:

Cllr Nicholas Parsons disagreed that the Council’s consultation process was flawed, but indicated that it would not rest on its laurels.

Cllr Paul Hodgkinson stated that this was the first chance members had to debate the matter.  He said “we accept housing is needed”, but pointed out that there is a huge gap in affordability, in terms of the average housing costs and average wages.  However he stated that the allocation must be by fair shares and that the [Chesterton] proposal is too big.  He suggested sharing small scale developments around the [District Council] area and pointed out that villages, such as North Cerney, which he represents had asked for new building and been told it wasn’t sustainable.  He also queried where the people who took on the new properties would work, believing many would have to commute elsewhere and asking where is the strategy to create local jobs.

Cllr Joe Harris mentioned the need for protecting the existing community and stated Kingshill to have been badly planned. He said ” I have to applaud the Save Our Cirencester Group” with reference to the size of the proposed development.  Referring to Cllr N Parsons’ defence of the consultation process satisfying government inspectors he said “Listen to the people.  They are the people who elected you, not some inspector from London.”

Chesterton  member Cllr Deryck Nash (Cllr Mrs Rickman was absent from the meeting) observed that it was ridiculous that a development of less than 40 houses can’t be counted against the target of properties for the Local Plan.  Regarding the consultation process he stated that there are “still people in Cirencester who are not aware of this threat to their town”.  He asked Council to think again on the proposal and its size and location.

Cllr Ray Theodolou pointed out that his own community of Fairford with 400 houses approved is sharing the burden of new development.  Referring to a proposed additional charge by Thames Water throughout the Thames Valley for a sewer in London, he asserted “They clearly cannot manage this project”.

Cllr Esmond Jenkins was of the opinion that “The local community is right to challenge the number of properties being dumped on the fringe of Cirencester”. He said the development is so large we have the chance to ask real questions why this easy option is being taken, adding that it is “universally unpopular, only popular with Earl Bathurst”.  He further observed that the “people making decisions do not represent the electorate”.  Referring to Kingshill as a “planning disaster”, he urged the Leader to represent the interests of the community and that we should be saying “No” to 2,500 houses.

Cllr Lee Searles said that affordable housing is needed, but all over [the District], whereas planning policy seems restricted to one area.  This could be slow death for the villages and is not a solution.  He referred to the employment aspect round the Kingshill development, indicating the belief (voiced also to those collecting the petition signatures) that there are a lot of incomers who  are commuting to work elsewhere.  He stated that sustainability requires jobs being developed locally and feared that jobs could not arrive quickly enough to help new residents.

Cllr Mark Wardle was concerned that the issue of which settlements should take  proportions of the required new property levels was potentially divisive for those communities, with nobody wanting massive developments. It was, he observed, not known how many properties we would actually need in the coming years and that funding should be made available to find out.

(Save Our Cirencester would like to point out that it does not have any political affiliation and that comments above are believed to be representative of the content of the meeting.  There was also a generally held view that the national planning requirements made of local authorities are inequitable.)

In his summing up, Mark Pratley told members that “Each of you has a legacy to decide how to go forward”.  He said people were shocked at the size of the proposal and told members they have a chance to rebuild the trust.  In conclusion he reiterated the Group’s thanks to Council for receiving the petition and hearing our views.

Questions submitted with the petition and in relation to it, were answered in writing (by papers available to those present at the meeting).  Apart from containing a number of acronyms – which were not defined for those not in ‘the know’ – it might well be thought by concerned residents that the answers gave very little of use to assuage the fears of the electorate.

Verbal Presentation to Council Meeting

At today’s Council meeting Mark Pratley spoke on behalf of ‘Save Our Cirencester’ in handing over the petition.  Mark’s presentation was as follows:

“Good morning ladies and gentleman, Mr Chairman.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present this petition, on behalf of the 2,708 people who signed it. The feed-back from the doorstep was strong, and indeed, throughout the whole of this campaign either on the stall, in the Market Place or on the doorstep, we were ‘pushing at an open door’ – our campaign was widely welcomed and wished the very best of luck.

The feedback has generated in our opinion two key words, IMPACT and TRUST.

IMPACT

People are very concerned about the IMPACT that this proposed development will have on the town. Throughout our campaign the one thing that has come back time and time again is the size of the development. On numerous occasions people agreed the need for more housing, but NOT on this scale. (Had we campaigned on No housing we would not have had much support). It was said again and again “yes we need housing, but why should Cirencester take more than its fair share”? In the 2001-2011 local plan no less than 64% of the district [increase] was built in Cirencester. The current local draft plan wants to add yet another 39.2%.

Deep concern was expressed about water supply, (rivers running dry, after yet one of the wettest winters on record), Gumstool being an example; well-reported sewage problems, Thames Water is considered to be utterly incompetent in managing these issues; poor infrastructure, poor pot-holed roads, town centre access and car parks.

[There are also] pressures on local services, doctors surgeries, schools, the local hospital no longer has a 24hour Accident and Emergency Dept. Local employment. (Note the new Aldi store has only employed 50% of the staff locally, according to the local paper).

TRUST

What has come across loud and clear is a complete lack of trust in the various agencies that would be involved in managing a project of this magnitude.

NO TRUST in the local authority to manage and ensure that Developers would be held to account, and made to stick to agreed plans.

NO TRUST that the Planning Dept. is capable of EFFECTIVELY managing such a project, with respect to the principles established in outline planning permission being adhered to in final planning permission.

NO TRUST that developers would be made to ensure that promised enhancements would be delivered, and on time. On many occasions people highlighted instances where, in the past, promises have never been delivered (shops, transport, etc.).

Absolutely NO TRUST in the consultation process, regarded as nothing more than a tick box exercise, and the on-line process is regarded as less than user friendly and designed to frustrate people and therefore put them off.

People want more transparency from the Local Authority, they are fed up with feeling there is a hidden agenda, and that everything is a ‘done deal’.

The architects JTP are very professional but, remember, they are working on behalf of the landowner. Why is there never a presence from CDC? It is almost as if they (CDC) are passing the buck.

In conclusion you, Ladies and Gentleman, have an opportunity to really manage the impact on Cirencester, and manage the numbers game.

You have an opportunity to rebuild the TRUST, in demonstrating how you deal with the IMPACT.

Thank you.”

 

Petition delivered to Cotswold District Council

On Friday 12th September our petition, with a total of more than 2,500 signatures, was handed over to Cotswold District Council. With only 850 signatures needed to require the full Council to hold a debate, this figure is a significant call by the people of Cirencester and the surrounding area to take notice of their concerns.

Mike Grout and Mark Pratley with the bound petition ready for submission

The petition had to be received by the Council’s officers in order for the matter to be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the full Council on Tuesday 23rd September. This meeting, scheduled for 10 a.m. at the Council Chamber, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX, is open to the public.

A representative of the Save Our Cirencester group will be invited to speak in introduction of the petition. Following a response by the appropriate Cabinet member, a debate involving all Councillors present will take place.

Interested residents are urged to attend in support of the petition.  However it must be stated that only the nominated representative is entitled to address the meeting and supporters are requested to show respect for the proper procedures being followed.