Sunday 14 November 2010

An Invitation ...

to the leaders of South Holland & Lincolnshire County Councils in view of the lack of response to 4th October communication reprised in the last post


I would like to invite you both, that is with no deputising and no entourage, to meet with me and fellow West Drove South residents to address the under mentioned list of points that, by and large, have been dealt with in such a crass way by staff under your auspices that faith in local government is now non-existent.

John Hayes MP was gracious enough to accept just such an invitation recently and it provided the first REAL forum that residents have been able to say “someone listened”. A key observation that he made was that the building of affordable houses had been undertaken and work carried out without the site being looked at. You may dispute that observation but the fact that it was said by an impartial observer clearly means something which you might choose to dismiss as ‘pandering to a baying mob’, but that was simply not the case.

You have my assurance that, as in the case where Mr Hayes came, there will be no recording and West Drove South residents only will attend. The local press will NOT be briefed before or afterwards by me nor will it be sanctioned or suggested by me through any other party.

1. We would like your reassurance, in person, that the existing 40mph speed limit is safe despite the building of 6 affordable homes (in close proximity to one another designed to accommodate 5 people each)that are set back and obscured from the view of the one track lane travelling from its northerly direction IS SAFE. Mr Hayes passed the observation that it was too high!

2. We would like your reassurance, in person, that the proposed footpath to be built alongside the one track lane will allow the use of twin buggies and wheelchairs throughout without the need to go onto the road to navigate around street furniture, that drainage will remove surface water that currently accumulates at the site, that the path will be FULLY maintained so that at no time of the year will it be necessary for pedestrians to use the roadway. Again Mr Hayes expressed concern at the footpath proposal. Just because it was part of the granting of planning permission doesn’t actually make it right.

3. We would like your reassurance, in person, that the modus operandi of path construction, because of the nature of road width, will be sympathetic to road and pedestrian users who are by and large not convinced as to the necessity of this structure. In particular recognition to be paid to pedestrians walking children to school (or school bus) and back between 0820 and 0900 and 1520 and 1600 – unlike the cavalier manner adopted at the building site for the homes on which matter my complaint was completely ignored! Will you GUARANTEE no road closure of West Drove South at its northern end?


I look forward to an early response in order that a line can be drawn under these issues as soon as possible.

4th October Representation To Councils

A complaint against the proposed creation of a footpath along a section of West Drove South

Dear Sir,

I believe plans to put in place a footpath along a stretch of this country lane are ill-conceived, were a sop to residents in connection with unwanted construction in the area and will patently be a costly white elephant for much of the time. I elaborate my concerns thus:

ONE

The proximity to very significant shrubbery and small trees is an untenable long term site to place a footpath because of plain to see maintenance problems. The fabric of the path will be subjected to root pressures that will sooner or later create trip hazards. The foliage grows back at such a rate so as to make any use of the footpath a struggle or worse unusable. These scenarios will mean users walking in the road, no question about it. Can the council say what maintenance schedule they are prepared to embark upon to eliminate these possibilities? Attached are images showing the high re-growth of foliage between last spring and the present.

TWO

The site has historically serious drainage issues. I draw the readers attention to the attached images supporting this fact. With the introduction of a footpath the congregation of surplus water will be shifted to the extent that it will present the user of the footpath with the danger of being drenched inadvertently or otherwise by road users. This is a problem heightened by the information that road user has to take in whilst in the knowledge that 40mph is the safe road speed by order of the legal limit on this one track country lane thus leading to the danger to path users being spotted too late.

THREE

There are dangers presented to the user of the footpath once introduced that are not present now.

Firstly at leaf fall there will be very significant detritus affecting the footway to the extent that it will become a safety hazard whereas presently leaf fall congregates upon the unused grass verge or is dispersed by vehicle use of the lane. Is the council prepared to commit to a policy of high intensive leaf fall clearance on health and safety grounds at this site or will the authority be happy for pedestrians to not use the path they intend to spend council tax money on and to walk in the road alongside?

Secondly the path will present a very strong possibility of injury to path users, especially in darker winter months, from unseen twigs and branches of shrubs and trees protruding onto the pathway. Unless a policy to implement lighting to assist users is instigated I can envisage eye injuries and aggravation from the twigs that will again prompt the people on foot to take the easy option of walking on the road.

FOUR

Weeks of totally unnecessary disruption for residents. So this will be the price residents have to pay for council intransigence. What are your plans to keep traffic moving at this end of West Drove South whilst allowing pedestrians? Will the councils adopt the ever so laissez faire mode that they so profoundly displayed with the construction of affordable homes when children being walked to pick up the school bus or going home from the head of the road were subjected to dodging very large lorries on a daily basis or the constructors showering them with dust? We’re talking construction at the narrowest point of a one track country lane – how are you going to minimise inconvenience whilst you build this white elephant?

FIVE

At a time when Eric Pickles, Communities minister, is trying to control local government spending why is this madness of the West Drove South “mistake” now going to cost council tax payers unnecessary money for such a worthless project? The planning has been “faulty” and should now draw back on cost grounds before it is too late.

SIX

Existing street parking – where does it go – are there going to be cars mounting this pavement because of irresponsible parking? Will some homeowners not be able to have visitor parking? Are there going to be yellow lines introduced? Emergency services, large agricultural vehicles – what about them?

SEVEN

What confidence can residents have that with the building of this footpath that all members of society will be empowered by it not inconvenienced? Will a double buggy or wheelchair be able to use its complete length without resorting to the road because of street furniture?

Additionally the issue of bus access is an unsolved conundrum in my view. The school bus – a small bus – is unable to negotiate West Drove South because of a lack of turning facility. I have a letter from Fowlers confirming that in no way will they provide bus access in this lane. The upshot of this is that whilst every single child on the Shepeau Stow Primary School bus run has a pick up and drop off at their home ensuring a very high degree of safety, we as residents of West Drove South are forced to take our children to the end of our one track lane to get on it! And now it is an SHDC given to disadvantage more residents they have planned for in West Drove South. Is it going to be council policy for wheelchair and double buggy users to use the road all the time or some of the time as I have described elsewhere herein? Is it to be council policy for residents to drive children to the end of the road when the footpath is unavailable? The council provision for the disabled needing to use public or school bus transport – this could be clearly construed as discriminatory depending the answers here.

EIGHT

Why are the council choosing to disadvantage road users unnecessarily in this way? There will be increased road traffic trying to cope invariably with increased pedestrian traffic avoiding the footpath thereby increasing risks to all involved on a one track country lane when the footpath is not viable. Is this a sensible way to contribute to road safety? Is this indicative of attitudes at local government level towards areas starved of resources already, doing things on the cheap, cowboy fashion and holding local opinion in contempt?

What research has been carried out into all these matters? Mr X, Head of Planning, SHDC, disingenuously remarked in previous complaint correspondence (clearly designed to more than a little irritate) that it did not matter that I had not been involved in the planning process for the affordable houses as ALL the issues that I would have raised “WERE CONSIDERED” with the 5 planning process objections the council received!!! So, with that in mind, you will already have the answers to the above and therefore a speedy response is expected by yours truly! I suggest that Steve Williams was wrong begging his pardon along with much else in his correspondence which can wait for a “name and shame” airing at a later date.

So instead of ivory tower planning authorities having all the answers they are again showing their ignorance and arrogance in actually making problems worse. They charge ahead without thinking things through, without talking to ALL the people involved and end up doing what they intended in the first place come what may with the consequences of council tax payers enjoying the privilege of their competence issues.

Why not show a smidgen of humility and start displaying some common sense. Take residents with you instead of putting their backs up. But I’m not holding my breath.

This solution is worse than the problem. The problem is one that SHDC & LCC has created. This is the powerful message that John Hayes MP will be presented with when he visits the residents and me having accepted my invitation to do so hopefully later this month when his schedule permits.


Click HERE for a PDF containing images referred to in the above

You've Seen The Video Now Read On

South Holland District Council in South Lincolnshire - East Midlands or East Anglia depending on your reading of the map - decided in their wisdom to agree a highly dubious planning permission for 6 semi-detached affordable homes on just about the most stupid location in the village of Gedney Hill. This is not about being anti-affordable homes, which would be an outrageous misrepresentation of the truth, no this is about a council's agenda-based decision making that has run into the brick wall of being called to account. Questions we are entitled to have answered but of course they will not be, such as: Why build these 6 houses (each for five people equating to possibly 18 or more small children effectively an estate) on a one track county lane with no street lights, no footpath, poor state of repair roadway when there are other locations in the village that have a 2 lane road, footpaths on both sides and street lights? Why is Gedney Hill the recipient village of the largest number of affordable houses in South Holland out of all villages many of which have zero new affordable homes (according to a Freedom of Information question to this authority)? Why are large numbers of affordable homes being built in a location 15 minutes drive from doctor, dentist, or just about anything really? There are no playing fields, no recreation facilities - only 1 general shop with post office and 1 pub, and an infant/primary school that most people in the village are shunning (for reasons they can put forward) suffice it to say that a few years ago it had circa 100 pupils and now has circa 40. Crucially too where are the children in these affordable houses going to play?


Roll back a little. As part of the planning being granted it was conditional that a footpath be constructed. Well we're nearing completion of these 6 homes and as yet work has not started on building this footpath. In my upcoming posts I'll be explaining why this footpath, on the face of it a much needed asset to West Drove South, is a complete waste of council taxpayers money and why, together with my attempts to explain this in a logical manner to the authorities. So far there is no evidence that the council are listening!

The Video Evidence


To download this MP4 video right click HERE and select save