50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

What do you think about the quality and pace of housing development in Ware?

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby Warewolf » Wed 28 Jan 2015 7:41 am

Dazzzzer wrote:
andyc wrote:
I think you will find most people, including myself want the School to develop and welcome a Sport Hall but don't agree with a housing estate on a playing field to fund it !


This particular field has never been used by the school (apart from sledging during snow!) and Ware Lions relocated 2 or 3 years ago.
User avatar
Warewolf
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004 12:00 am
Location: Ware

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby garymanchee » Wed 28 Jan 2015 12:23 pm

Ware Town council have voted against the proposal to build a housing development on Chauncy school field to fund a new sports hall. This decision was based on their "local knowledge" of the area and the negative impact on infrastructure that another housing development in this area would cause.

Lets be clear - the proposed housing development was justified on an erroneous claim that the land was "redundant" and "unsupervisable." There is documentation to prove that community teams were removed from this area of the school field by the Head in 2012.

Some key points -

The planning application and supporting information does not provided sufficient justification to satisfy any of the policy tests as set out in local policies, National Planning policies or planning guidance published by Sport England and the Council’s "Playing Pitch" Strategy and Outdoor Sports Assessment.

The application site, previously formally laid out as football pitches, was deliberately neglected so as to remove its playing field appearance. However, the visual appearance of the site is actually irrelevant to the consideration of the planning application as the site is still viable as a playing field.

The planning application fails to satisfy the relevant policy tests and as outlined by Sport England.

Also but not secondary to the above -

It is clear that Park Road (a "no through road") is already far too over-developed due to the huge GSK site footprints, 2 nursery schools, St Catherines and Chauncy school and soon the Asda superstore.

Together this over-development has created the "perfect storm" wrt the traffic parking and congestion.

- There are over 4500 car journeys per day (excluding daily juggernaut deliveries)
- There is unacceptable and dangerous on-road parking at peak times, causing severe congestion.

The proposed housing development access onto Park Road is truly breathtaking in its positioning and is neglectful of its impact on the safety of Park Road users. The proposed site access is within yards of 2 existing major access points and the blind bend leading into Trapstyle road.

At peak times Park road has a "continuation" of parked cars which narrows the road to a single carriageway with only "alternating" traffic flow possible. Interestingly, I note an absurd proposal by Chauncy of traffic calming measures......the news is that at key times there is no traffic flow!

I acknowledge the credibility and good name of Chauncy school to date. Also it is good to see the school being ambitious. However its growth and ambition must take into account the impact on the "wider community" and not just the "school community" it serves.
garymanchee
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2014 5:15 pm

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby Alec » Wed 28 Jan 2015 3:41 pm

Unsurprisingly, there are some very opposing views on this subject, both firmly believing they're right.

I notice that Chauncy has provided a template for a letter supporting the application at http://chauncyschool.com/chauncy-school-sports-hall-planning-application which can be personalised and emailed to planning@eastherts.gov.uk

I'd encourage anyone with (supporting or opposing) views on either/both proposals to download the letter, and amend the contents to align with their views, and then send it to the planning department.

Note, I'm encouraging you to participate in the planning decision, but I'm not telling you what to think...
Alec
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri 07 Nov 2003 12:00 am
Location: Ware

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby alee » Wed 28 Jan 2015 6:42 pm

Thanks Alec.

My child goes to the school and it seems that the traffic is already bad so I can understand the residents.

The planning application has a scientific traffic survey you can look at that says during peak period (1 hour school drop off time x 2) only and extra 23 cars, one every 2 minutes as a number of the affordable housing is for the elderly.

Also someone else mentioned earlier about Glaxo and double yellow lines?

As a parent my child would benefit from on site sporting facilities.

You can vote either way but if you want to support the proposal use their template which you can download http://chauncyschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Template_Letter_To_Support_Sports_Hall_CHAUNCY.docx

and send to planning@eastherts.gov.uk , couldnt be easier

or copy and paste this.
____________________

[Insert your Name and Address]

Date: [Insert date here]


Planning Department
East Herts District Council
Wallfield
Pegs Lane
Hertford SG13 8EQ


Chauncy School Planning Application Refs: 3/14/2250/FP and 3/14/2292/FP

I am writing to you as a member of the local community and a parent who is in full support of the proposals that will lead to the development of a new sports hall at Chauncy School.

I therefore support both planning applications:

• Sports Hall Ref No: 3/14/2250/FP
• Housing Ref No: 3/14/2292/FP

I believe that this development will provide a centre of excellence for sport in Ware and will provide much needed sports and recreational opportunities for the children at Chauncy School, the local primary schools and the wider community.

Yours faithfully



[Insert name here]

---------------------------------------
alee
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue 27 Jan 2015 11:11 pm

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby garymanchee » Thu 29 Jan 2015 9:47 am

At the Ware town council meeting The Head of Chauncy made a serious claim that one reason why he removed community clubs from the field was because they were not insured and it was costing the school money. If true this of course would represent a serious Health and safety risk etc.

However, I have received confirmation that this was in fact was not the case (see below email quotation). It begs the question of how many other "supporting facts" put forward by Chauncy are authentic? Its a bit self-defeating to try to re-write history in the modern world of "email" I would suggest.

"........ the issue of insurance specifically, in my e-mail to Dennis dated 15th May 2012. This detail was passed on to the school several times verbally prior to my written communication to Dennis detailing our cover via the Herts FA.

All clubs that are affiliated to their county FA (as Ware Lions have always been) pay a premium for public liability insurance as part of their affiliation fee (see: http://www.hertfordshirefa.com/club/adm ... ffiliation)".

It would be much better having an honest and open discussion within the real community about the impact of this proposed development /sports hall rather than the "concocted" / "tenuous" list of justifications offered to date - which does absolutely nothing for the credibility of the school or anyone associated with it.
garymanchee
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2014 5:15 pm

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby Wareite1969 » Thu 29 Jan 2015 11:37 am

** Warning - Heated Debate Alert **

It appears that this another 'Top Down' driven application in the same way as the recent Regional College one. 'We need a new sports hall therefore we need to get this much from our land. The only way the land is worth enough is an intensive housing development therefore we need that to be granted' . Surely the correct approach is 'How much is this land worth to a developer (given what is an appropriate development, the answer to which may be that no development is appropriate), Does that realise enough for us to develop our facilities or should we in fact keep the land and find other ways to fund a development'

The fact the school are actively encouraging people to write to the council supporting the housing scheme on the basis pupils will benefit from the sports hall is worrying. The 2 schemes are surely independent and has the feel of developers using the schools wish for 'Healthy Facilities that encourage fitness and community spirit' to allow them to get an otherwise doubtful development through the planning process
Wareite1969
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu 03 Nov 2011 12:00 am
Location:

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby garymanchee » Thu 29 Jan 2015 2:10 pm

Wareite1969 wrote:** Warning - Heated Debate Alert **

It appears that this another 'Top Down' driven application in the same way as the recent Regional College one. 'We need a new sports hall therefore we need to get this much from our land. The only way the land is worth enough is an intensive housing development therefore we need that to be granted' . Surely the correct approach is 'How much is this land worth to a developer (given what is an appropriate development, the answer to which may be that no development is appropriate), Does that realise enough for us to develop our facilities or should we in fact keep the land and find other ways to fund a development'

The fact the school are actively encouraging people to write to the council supporting the housing scheme on the basis pupils will benefit from the sports hall is worrying. The 2 schemes are surely independent and has the feel of developers using the schools wish for 'Healthy Facilities that encourage fitness and community spirit' to allow them to get an otherwise doubtful development through the planning process


Totally agree - You have outlined the situation perfectly.......I hope the "powers that be" and who will decide on this matter see it like you have :-)
garymanchee
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2014 5:15 pm

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby mb1 » Thu 29 Jan 2015 7:03 pm

The schemes are not independent, they are intrinsically linked. The sportshall is funded by the sale of the land. If that does not go through,there will be no new sportshall. anyone saying anything else is at best misleading people. If you oppose the housing scheme you are opposing decent sports facilities for Chauncy pupils and the community.
mb1
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon 15 Oct 2007 12:00 am
Location: Ware

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby Wareite1969 » Thu 29 Jan 2015 7:42 pm

The schemes may well be financially linked but my point was that maybe the finances are wrong because the land is not worth what the school wants it to be due to the housing scheme not passing the appropriate tests.

People should not feel they have to accept an inappropriate housing scheme just because the school wants a new sports hall.
Wareite1969
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu 03 Nov 2011 12:00 am
Location:

Re: 50 more houses, is Park Road not busy enough ?

Postby Scottman » Thu 29 Jan 2015 9:19 pm

The land is worth nothing unless planning permission is granted. Planning permission should be granted for only a normal density of homes, with sufficient access, amenity and above all parking spaces per property in accordance with East Herts parking guidelines(which are published). It is this analysis that will then determine the value of the land - which may then, or may not, fund the high desires of Chauncy School.

Worth remembering it's our public land that is being sold - it is Council owned land (ie you and me).

As Wareite1969 said, this is exactly what is being forced through at Herts Regional College (which goes to Public Appeal on 24-27 February )
Scottman
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue 21 Apr 2009 12:00 am
Location:

PreviousNext

Return to Housing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests