|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 3, 2013 2:46:54 GMT
Planning » Planning Application Documents
13/00719/FUL | The erection of a new all weather 40x20 riding arena/manege complete with new exterior fencing, lighting and drainage on the St James City Farm site adjacent to St James Park. | St James City Farm Albany Street Gloucester GL1 4NG So I'm forced to conclude from the appearance of that word, 'manege' again, that it actually means something, and ooh la, it means riding academy. What I'm more surprised by is the fact that this application went in in July, and apart from vague aspirational references, this is the first I've heard of it. When I tried the link above it kept coming back with errors or blank pages, so I'm going to have to go into the council offices themselves to view the information, and see if any complaints were made (which would require residents being aware of something specific to object to). I can't see how there wouldn't be objections to a large chunk of the park being taken away from residents. I guess this would explain, though, why the equally vague references (sole source: Lorraine Mutty) to the Friends of St. James group being revived have so far amounted to nothing more than that. Such a group would surely have something to say about this plan. In its/their absence, the Friendship Café can promise in the application that they will maintain the park, out of the goodness of their hearts. More on this when I have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 3, 2013 4:43:45 GMT
The recent Citizen article about this...
And yes, Matthew Bishop, I am up this late...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 15:02:48 GMT
The most worrying part of the application, surely, is the false statement that the location for the new development is St. James City Farm, when it is actually proposed to be built in St. James' Park! How are they allowed to get away with this? There has been no public consultation. Is the council giving or leasing them the land, and would either be lawful?
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 3, 2013 22:41:41 GMT
The site worked today, and it was staggering. I was told by Derek Wakefield Brown, at the meeting where TETRA 'amalgamated' the TRA at the Big Vic, that the triangular piece of land with the bird bath would be turned into an allotment, but now it seems that that, and the current allotments, are going to be part of this grand design, along with the path that leads onto High St (which explains why the recyling bins have been removed from that spot).
And then there's the 'paddock', which was erected in a haze about what its purpose would be, but now looks like a land grab in anticipation of this project. I wouldn't be surprised if the council had sold Gymnation that patch of land, they would sell anything just so they can tell us that taxes won't be rising. I do feel an FoI request coming on.
What I haven't seen, and I am pretty sure I would have if it had been there to see, is any sign of a notice put up to give residents an opportunity to challenge the proposal. They could say, of course, that it went up on some lamppost in July, and has now been removed, but in practise those notices stay up for months, gradually degrading. Of course, if the community noticeboards I've been asking for for such a long time had been put in place, the farm would have had no choice but to put a notice there, and everyone would have seen it. A perfect reason to block such an initiative...
I guess the place to ask about it will be at the 'TETRA' meeting, located, as it happens, at the City Farm, at 10am, on Monday, 9th September. Except that if Tony Ward gets his way, I won't be able to attend it, so hopefully others will. I still aim to be there long enough to ask why, if contrary to what Lyn Scudamore said previously, Barton residents won't be allowed to attend the meetings, we can't have our own association, or even just a regular monthly opportunity to have our say about local issues.
Maybe, just maybe, the City Farm would offer an hour a month for a revived Barton Residents' Association, as they did in principle for the TRA before Tony crushed its windpipe with his boot...
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 4, 2013 10:30:45 GMT
I've just made a comment about this to the council planning site. Apparently we can still do that, despite the deadline ending theoretically months ago, and I see two other statements, posted just two days back, presumably after we highlighted this issue. There is sadly no link for viewing them, but hopefully that will change.
My statement:
I struggle between 'Object' and 'Neutral' in the choices above, because the lack of any notification of this proposal to the public makes me very wary of supporting it. In fact, having looked at the Design and Access Statement, I feel pushed towards the former. I should say that the point may be moot, as in theory the period during which comments could be made has long since expired, but since two comments have now shown up, dated September 2nd, although they cannot be viewed, perhaps it's not too late, due to the aforementioned absence of notification?
Well, my feelings, having read the D&A Statement, are that this proposal may spell the end of St James' City Farm, and that in fact this may have been the long-term objective. How long would it be before all other animals were removed, if the scheme went ahead?
The proposal is also out of date, as the carpark that used to belong to the Golden Heart will now be needed by the Treddy, as the Heart has been re-named and re-opened.
Removal of public paths, trees and currently used allotments, none of this has been raised for public discussion. There is also a question over who owns the land currently fenced off between the Farm and St James' Church. Is it the city (county?) council's, or was it sold to Gymnation? Again, such a transaction has never been put to consultation.
We have an upcoming meeting of the Tredworth Estate & Tenants Residents Association (TETRA), to be held, as it happens, at the City Farm on Monday, 9th September, at 10am. It would be a very helpful move if these details could be discussed at that meeting, before any further decisions are made.
Cheers.
Edited: forgot the 'Residents', which is usually Tony Ward's job...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 13:44:24 GMT
All of St. James' Park is, or was, owned by the city council. If they've sold it off illicitly, they are going to wish they'd never been born!
The car park behind the Golden Heart/Treddy belongs to the city council, and is intended for use by shoppers in the High Street. In reality, most cars are parked illegally on double yellow lines and pavements by lazy scumbags, who apparently can't manage to walk the extra few metres from The Laurels and who never seem to be fined.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 4, 2013 21:57:54 GMT
The documents link at the top of the page seems to be working properly now, that is, even the comments are viewable. In addition to the first two and now my own, there is a new one by Tom Wilson, who replaced Robert Simpson as vicar at St James'. His 'support', though, comes across as a day late and a dollar short. Rather, simply evidence that anyone who knew a thing about this wanted it to be a fait accompli, which betrays a total lack of how regulations are supposed to work, for a very good reason.
I see the council hasn't done anything about the way comments are shown, either. No matter that I used five paragraphs, all my words get squashed into a single one. And I made a point of copying this before I posted the comment:
' Make a Comment
'You can make a comment supporting or objecting to this planning application. Your comment will be submitted to the planning authority and immediately made available online to the public. We will not display your address, telephone number or email address to the public.'
They seem to have learned their lesson with me, but Miss Polson and Mrs Major have had their addresses displayed for all to see. Not so our vicar, though...
I really hope enough of a noise is made to make the TETRA meeting an interesting one, but it's a stretch when objections = confrontation = 'negativity'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 5, 2013 10:05:09 GMT
This may shed some light on the ownership thing. I tracked it down again to confirm what it said about Barton & Tredworth having the least green space in Gloucester ('60-100% shortfall'): Community Asset Transfer Community Asset Transfer (CAT) is a shift in management and/or ownership of land or buildings from public bodies (most commonly local authorities) to communities (community and voluntary sector groups, community enterprises, social enterprises, etc). The Council recognises the value of enabling local community partners to take more responsibility for local assets, a process which can help to bring in external funding for its sites. With suitable safeguards in place, this can bring real benefits to both residents and the council. Transfer options can range from freehold, a long lease, a shorter lease or a licence to occupy. However, for most transfers, where grants or loans are sought for capital development, the length of tenure will need to be long enough to secure external investment. Therefore, community asset transfer is usually taken to mean a long lease of at least 25 years or a freehold. The Localism Act 2011 provides mechanisms for voluntary and community groups, parish councils and local social enterprises to express an interest in taking over the running of a local authority service or facility through community right to buy. www.gloucester.gov.uk/Documents/councilservices/Planning/GreenTeam/Draft-Open-Space-Strategy-2012.pdf (page 27) Revealing map about green space distribution on page 21. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 5, 2013 10:10:27 GMT
What it boils down to is, Tories will sell stuff off, to the 'community', and what becomes of the land when the 'community' decides it's not 'practical' to continue with the upkeep of the facilities doesn't concern the council a jot. The entire park could become an arena, bit by bit, because frankly, what they are currently proposing to nab won't be enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 12:57:12 GMT
They really are appalling people. They certainly learned nothing from the Trust Centre fiasco. If necessary, I will hire a solicitor to fight this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 5, 2013 22:28:08 GMT
Well, I have to say, as a cheapskate, find out as much as you can before taking that step.
I posted this to the Tredworth Facebook page. I know you don't use FB, so I'll repeat it here:
I just realised that the purple area (the 'arena' itself, I guess) will extend far below the paddock as it is currently fenced. The path that would prevent this happening, as it currently runs diagonally from where the paddock fence now stands... well, here's what they say:
'Path rerouting
'As far as we understand, adjacent path to the East of the proposed is not [underscored] a public right of way or Highways owned. Therefore as we understand a rerouting order will not be required!' [they actually used an exclamation mark]
'As we understand' is a hell of a get-out...
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 6, 2013 12:10:43 GMT
I popped by the Farm this morning, thinking I would have to go into the building to find the notice. Instead, this was on a telegraph pole, so either they slipped up, or they always intended to wait a few months after the application. Or, someone really thought they might get away with not posting anything... Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2013 12:38:24 GMT
An application is only valid from the date that the council validates it, not from the date that it is first given to them. There must have been a lot of problems with this one, as it was only validated last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 7, 2013 0:11:15 GMT
I guess so. Perhaps things might have moved faster, if they had been more open, and got the support of the public, rather than Tom Wilson's belated recommendation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Sept 10, 2013 11:49:59 GMT
This is the response to my FoI request:
Q: Who owns the patch of land situated between the City Farm and St. James' Church, near Upton Street, separated from St. James' Park by approximately four foot high wooden fencing, and sometimes called the 'paddock'? Has it been sold/given to another party by the council?
A: Having consulted colleagues in Asset Management I can confirm that the attached plan show’s Gloucester City Council’s interests at St James park.
The pink areas are City Council freehold, with the green hatched area leased to Gymnasian Uk Ltd dated the 01/08/2011 for 20 years.
The pdf provided didn't download, but it's clear that the plot has been leased to Gymnasian UK. I think this means goodbye farm, hello riding school (to go with the archery and swimming), but some would say I'm cynical that way...
|
|
