A Controversial Planning Application

A new location for the Montessori Nursery has been causing some debate within Whitchurch as the excellent Nursery seeks a replacement site. In December 2020 an outline planning application was presented to Whitchurch Town Council on an area of woodland on an old railway embankment adjacent to Park View, a housing area near All Hallows Church.

The proposed woodland site

The application was supported by the Council but in November 2021 the Town Council was asked to reconsidered it due to the many subsequent changes made by the applicant over the following nine months.
A meeting of the Development Committee at the newly refurbished Town Hall was held. 

Here is not the place to comment on why a restriction on time for speaking was implemented, nor why at very short notice the capacity of the Council Chamber restricted a number of public objectors from gaining entry, but fair to say it was not a happy meeting with some heckling and a number of public objectors walking out.

However this page is simply a place to publish the representations I made during the meeting, and is here solely as an effort to embrace transparency.

Here it is:

***************************


Chairman and fellow Councillors:

Firstly, this needs some clarity – it has nothing to do with supporting a nursery or not.

I have not found anyone opposed to the excellent education and services that Montessori provide, which are beyond reproach.
The town is growing and nursery provision and infrastructure needs to be provided.
My comments apply solely to the choice of this particular site when there may be others more suitable.

This Application is of massive interest to local residents and I commend Cllr Mercer for getting this accepted onto the Agenda.

1. Site

This is an undeveloped green site that has been used by generations for low key recreation as well as being a small wildlife haven and is recognised as having importance in the Neighbourhood Plan.

At a time of COP26 and when Whitchurch Town Council is reviewing its own Climate Action Plan, the destruction of any woodland areas must in my view be questioned.

2. Amenity Spread

I am concerned at the spread of our amenities in the town with two nurseries being in such close proximity while major house development takes place in the south.
South east Whitchurch is also possibly one of the areas where housing is most likely in the future where there is no provision.

3. Proximity to Rising Fives and restriction of facility

The proximity to Rising Fives Pre-School concerns me as Rising Fives use this public land for some of their outdoor activities.
To transfer this public amenity into a competing private nursery’s jurisdiction does quite not seem ‘right’.

Whilst the application states that the land will still be available there is no indication of any legal agreement to allow this or confirmation that such a condition would be within any planning approval.
I am also concerned to hear that Rising Fives were refused a spot to speak at this meeting.

Proposed access to parking, drop off/pick up

4. Traffic/Access

The access so close to Wells Lane is unsuitable for any on-street drop offs by motor vehicle and there is no detail how any conflicts with anyone cycling or walking will be removed.
The area is already busy with private vehicles at peak times, along with deliveries, service vehicles during the day. It is the sole access to the Park View residential area.

Details given on bus services are both disingenuous and incorrect. The 59 is a minibus and does not run “hourly”, it runs 2/3 times a day on three mornings only. The bus 17 does not exist and there is no half hourly service from the Cemetery stop. 

It throws credibility on the report.

And while I commend aims to give discounts and maps to those who walk or cycle, will these too be legal entity within any planning approval. I don’t believe they can be.

5. Proximity to neighbours

Anyone who visits the site will see that it overlooks the properties in Park View. Indeed on Thursday I stood on the site and was so close the houses in Park View that my eyes met a resident looking out of their first floor window.

To have the noise of children outside, the associated lighting all on a raised embankment at bedroom level is unacceptable for a residential living environment.

6. Alternative sites?

However I do believe there may be other potential sites within Whitchurch and I would have liked to know more about which ones were considered and why rejected. I asked this last December and no information was forthcoming.
(Testbourne, Primary School, new Mill Springs Sports Pitches area, Watership Place?)

7. I believe it falls foul of our Neighbourhood Plan:

The area is identified in the Whitchurch Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) 7.37 as one of the ‘key biodiversity assets of Whitchurch’.

And
WNP, 7.32, notes that there are:

“two distinct green corridors linking the parish with the town of Whitchurch: the disused railway line and the Test valley.

These areas are very important for both the community and the natural environment, because they provide a wide range of wildlife habitats, tree cover and footpath links.

They are particularly highly valued as they provide continuous corridors that are separated from the disturbance associated with buildings and traffic.

It is essential to retain the un-spoilt character of these [two] corridors and to encourage and reinforce footpath links throughout.

8. Conclusion

To support this application would be going against our own Neighbourhood Plan content, and challenges our Climate Change and aims.

It drives a massive wedge through the Neighbourhood Plan process something we should not risk given the massive potential developments that are appearing on the horizon.
To support this would be like throwing our own Neighbourhood findings under a bus and affect confidence and credibility in any future decisions.

I urge objection.

************************* 

The Meeting decided to SUPPORT the application.

Whilst I have to accept the Town Council decision and fully respect the views of fellow Councillors, the Application now goes to Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council to make the final decision.

Town Council engagement

It was exactly three years ago today, the 15th March 2018...

Four classes of young children visited the Whitchurch Town Hall Chamber from the Primary School over two days – it was fun. For a short time THEY were our Town Council; THEY were the most important people in our town; and of course THEY still remain so. THEY hold our future.

Our Town Council was moving in a positive direction – listening to, meeting with, talking to, and importantly involving local people in the future of the town; and who better to be part of that than our town's children. They debated, proposed and voted, and they were empowered. Some of us had already held 'surgeries' for our current residents – now it was the turn of the future of Whitchurch.

This was one of the best, most productive and encouraging events of the year and it remains a massive highlight along with a little humbling at their thoughtfulness and caring nature.

And what a happy picture this was, as myself, the lovely Fiona and our excellent Clerks, Karen and Sharon met these wonderful young people. Without their dedication and friendliness it could not have happened. Recognition must also go to the inspirational Barry Jackman who had, I believe, introduced a similar event some years back when he was Mayor.

We engaged, listened and acted and feedback was nothing but positive.

That's what Town Council's are for.

The children may even get the Zip wire they asked for, although not too sure about the McDonalds.

(click below pic to enlarge).

 

Traffic and Housing – A thought

Traffic congestion and 'being held up' is perhaps the most regular topic to arise on local social media channels. It is often linked to housing development and plans for the town's growth. "We cannot have more housing – Our roads cannot cope" and "No more building we already have gridlock".

But is there a more fundamental problem? Could it be more the way we prioritise our living spaces and indeed our lifestyles? Is there an over-reliance on motor vehicles that clog our streets and slow our journeys?

Hence some thoughts...

*IF* housing is needed (questionable), then we could focus on providing low-traffic neighbourhoods where people and liveability are put at the top of the hierarchy – home zones, easy safe walking routes with pedestrian priority, cycle safe/friendly infrastructure, priorities for local transport services, support for the most vulnerable...... 

Other countries manage it but we in the UK are stuck in a time warp concerning such planning strategies.

The result of our stagnation is that we have catalogue housing estates where road systems dominate instead of neighbourhoods where people, families, children come first. We have costly congestion, polluted streets, dangerous pavements... and here in Hampshire we have amongst the worst road safety casualty figures in the UK.
Yes, there are a few places that have been forward-looking but they are few and far apart.

What can we do?

When we have opportunities for setting out what type of living environment we want, and where our priorities should be, we need to take them.

Sitting back and moaning is not productive. 

One way is to get involved in the planning processes through Local and Neighbourhood Plans and to be proactive in making views known.

That time is now.

That increase in Local Tax (Precept)

Last year I could not support an increase costs by the Town Council on our residents that was kept to around 4% by using reserves. 

Around £13,000 was taken from reserves that with adjustments elsewhere could have been used on services/amenities for our residents.

I will simply repeat what I said then:

“It seems the proposal made is to use excess reserves to 'bail out’ this situation – funds that belong to the people of Whitchurch, and having accrued, should really be used for better purposes – community amenities and improvements to services.”

I asked “What will happen next year”.

Well here we are in 2021 and...

We are being asked to use even greater sums from the Reserves to prop up the budget.

Today there are concerns including increasing petty crime, poor pavement cleaning, lack of general maintenance, potential loss of the toilets, illegal rubbish dumping and possible future car park charging.

At the same time many residents are suffering financial implications from job losses, business closures, rising inflation, income reductions, increased stress and of course health difficulties and losses of family/friends through Covid.

When people in our community are having to raise funds, call for donations and give their own time to help the needy; and are delivering hundreds of food parcels and assist in providing basic needs, we as a Council are asking them to pay more?

Is that right?

I cannot agree to that so will oppose the budget that is being presented for 2021/22.

I voted against. I lost the argument.

The proposals were however agreed by majority, a process which I fully respect:

Charge to be raised from local residents (the Precept):  £160,852.54

For a Band D property this means a payment of £76.81, a rise of £12.97p p.a

This is a rise of 20.3% and ALSO takes a sum of £17,165.92 out of Reserves.

I'm not a financial expert, but my view there is something that needs addressing in the 'balance' of how the finances are managed when over £17k has to be used to prop up the figures which STILL result in a large increase.

Yes, there are amounts added for potential running of the Public Toilets, although we pay for that already through our taxes to Basingstoke; and for maintenance of the sports pitches, but overall with also over £100,000 on administration I feel most uncomfortable and hope that the Council can look again at its financial direction.

ALL MY OWN OPINION OF COURSE