|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 22, 2014 10:20:43 GMT
I found my Twitter notification email. I only asked for details, not dates, but I've sent another email to Ruth Silk, to clarify.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2014 21:53:15 GMT
One of the documents in that bundle relating to the consultation was an email dating from early August 2005; it had had the name redacted, so I have no idea who sent it, but it referred to the consultation and asked if it was too late to make a response. So, the consultation must have been in July 2005. This would have been just before the new play area was constructed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 23, 2014 14:28:41 GMT
Didn't think I was even taking enough interest in my local community back then to have a copy of the consultation (good job I laminated it, cuz of the plan of the park).
I think today might be the last chance to comment on the application, by the way. Or I might be a day out...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2014 15:39:43 GMT
Yes, it's today. I'm just finishing off my objection letter.
I've just discovered that the county council responded to my FOI request nearly a month ago, but I didn't see the 71-page pdf document. Presumably you've seen it. You haven't mentioned it, though, as far as I recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 23, 2014 16:15:29 GMT
No, I see that I'm subscribed to it, but I don't recall receiving any notification, only for my own requests. I sometimes (mostly) go straight to my browser history when I see a notification, and delete the email unopened, to save copy & pasting. One of them might have been for yours instead...
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 24, 2014 9:49:21 GMT
You played a blinder with the last comment, Kay. Not much for me to add, if I can, except maybe some views about their contributions to the community. Gavin Hodge might say that's not a 'material planning consideration', but neither is the fluff they put in the application...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2014 17:26:08 GMT
Perhaps you could paste my letter onto this website, so that it might get a bit more attention than otherwise.
I asked Paul James at last night's council meeting if they were going to lease the car park at The Laurels to Gymnasian, and he claimed to know nothing about the matter. Imran atcha, on the other hand, claims to have been in talks with the city council about using or more likely leasing the car park. Who to believe!
I also asked Saj Patel about his support for the plan, despite the loss of public open space. His answer sounded as if it had been learned by rote - the usual guff about the area being underused and how the riding arena would benefit poor people and especially children.
I see that the nepotism scandal has reared its ugly head again in the Citizen. I'm sure that they won't be able to prove any wrongdoing, but that doesn't mean...
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 25, 2014 5:17:48 GMT
Happy to, Kay:
Dear Sir,
Development Control, via email.
23rd January 2014
Objection to riding arena, 13/01311/FUL
Dear Sir,
Legality and ethics of the lease of public open space to an external organisation
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the long-term lease of a large section (circa 850 square metres) of public open space in St. James’ Park to Gymnasian on 1st August 2011 was not advertised to members of the public. All of the council documentation relating to the lease, and the subsequent public advertisements in the Citizen, referred exclusively to St. James’ City Farm, Albany Street. No mention was made at any time or in any document that part of St. James’ Park was also being disposed of by the city council. Nothing in either the council documents or the advertisements alerted me to the possibility that more than the city farm was being leased to Gymnasian. The intended use of the city farm if leased to Gymnasian was specified in Appendix 1 of the City Farm and Countryside Unit Review in 2010, and there is not the slightest hint that a riding arena was being planned. It is now clear to me that any controversial information was kept secret from the public until well after the date when objections could lawfully be made. The wording of the advertisements said “…to continue the use as City Farm.” The development of a riding arena is hardly a continued use, but a whole new use, in my opinion, as well as taking up public open space. I remember reading an article in the Citizen in 2001 that said that the Friendship Café were thinking of having a riding arena at the city farm, and I remember thinking ‘how stupid’. I assumed that it was some ridiculous pipe dream, as appears from time to time in the media, but never comes to anything; but of course, I knew nothing about the extra land that Gymnasian now controlled, until I discovered the extent of the leased land in early September 2013. One ex-councillor, who was on the council at the time of the decision to lease the land to Gymnasian, has told me that he was unaware of the extent of the land deal. Julian Wain claims that it was perfectly lawful for the then Director of Regeneration to determine boundaries of the city farm, but I don’t believe that it was, as they were legally and publicly determined by the original planning application that allowed the city farm to be set up. No member of the public could have been expected to know the contents ogf the lease arrangement with Gymnasian, therefore no-one had the chance to object.
Description of the land to be developed
For some reason that I can’t begin to fathom, the city council allows potential developers to choose their own description of land that is the subject of a planning application. When I complained to Gavin Jones about the wording of the planning application synopsis, he replied: “The description of development is that provided by the applicant on their application form, and was not one that I provided. However, I accept your comments that not all of the area of the land proposed for the riding area [sic] is covered by the animal grazing and paddock area.” Why is the applicant simply allowed to lie about the current use of the land? In fact, only about 40% of the application area has ever been used by the city farm, and I always understood that the use of part of St. James’ Park for an extra paddock was to be a temporary arrangement because the city farm required some extra grazing land. The main part of the development area is referred to in the application as: “Unused city farm space currently left for public recreational and access.” What an absolute cheek. I do wonder if local dog walkers and other regular users of the park even realise what’s about to happen if Gymnasian get their way. By the way, copying the exact wording from the applicant has allowed the application to be described as a ‘menage’, when the correct word would be ‘manege’.
City Council attitude to public open space
One might assume that the council view of the development of public open space would be governed by their Public Open Space Strategies. At the moment, we have the existing Public Open Space Strategy, which is dated June 2001. This identified a deficiency in both public open space and play area provision in the Barton and Tredworth area. Then there is the Draft Public Open Space Strategy from 2012, which has not yet been adopted by the council but must have been in the process of being collated when part of St. James’ Park was being leased to Gymnasian. This not only identified the Barton and Tredworth ward as still being seriously short of public open space and play area provision, despite the newish play area at St. James’ Park. It also incorrectly counted the area leased to Gymnasian as still being part of the public open space in St. James’ Park. This means that the deficit of public open space in the Barton and Tredworth ward is actually worse than that stated in the council’s documentation. Despite this deficit of public open space, it seems that the council had absolutely no qualms about leasing a large chunk of the park to Gymnasian. There is a section on page 27 of the draft document that refers to Community Asset Transfer under the Localism Act 2011; on reflection, I suspect that this invidious and pernicious legislation may be to blame for the current situation in St. James’ Park. In effect, the Localism Act allows councils to transfer control of public assets to private organisations, so that those who disagree with the use of those assets have no control whatsoever over their use. At least while assets are in public control, there is some hope of changing their use and maintenance, but once that control is lost, the only people with power are those who manage the organisation. In the case of Gymnasian, this means the trustees and some employees, members and volunteers. I would like to remind the city council of what has happened to the Trust Centre and so-called community garden in Conduit Street – the Trust Centre is now in private ownership, and the community garden has never to my knowledge been open to the community. That’s what can happen when you transfer the control of public assets to private organisations, including charities.
Information relating to the planning application
The application form, design and access statement and other information supplied by Imran Atcha are inadequate. Nowhere is it stated exactly how many horses or ponies will be kept at the city farm. Previous statements by Mr. Atcha suggest that three or four ponies will be used. This is too small a number to provide an adequate service to local children. There is also no indication of how there will be sufficient stable room and pasture provision for the ponies as well as the other farm animals, given that the current amount of pasture will inevitably be reduced. I suggest that either some of the current animals will be disposed of, or there will be another planning application to use even more of the grass of St. James’ Park as pasture, or possibly the ponies will have to be taken to pasture elsewhere, which will involve extra cost and reduce the amount of time that they are available to be ridden. Some of the information on the application form is also incorrect; for instance, there are currently no lawful parking spaces at the farm, therefore I challenge Imran Atcha to state where these spaces are and prove that they belong to the farm. The statement on page 2 of the DAS relating to the car park behind the Treddy pub is also worrying; this council-owned car park is currently free for anyone to use but, as with so much else, Gymnasian wants to use it for themselves. Has the city council done another secret deal to transfer this asset to Gymnasian?
Claimed improvement in anti-social behaviour
The claim that the riding arena would reduce anti-social behaviour in the area is nonsense. The children and young adults who are responsible for anti-social behaviour are not the same ones who are or would be attracted to either the city farm or a riding arena; besides which, if they were to suddenly see the city farm as a suitable place to ‘hang’, the farm would be totally overwhelmed by the sheer numbers. In fact, many people have said that 2013 saw the worst ever anti-social behaviour in the park; it was caused by the presence of young people from eastern Europe who gathered there because they had been driven out of the Napier Street play area. Only social services and the police can do anything about such problems. These lads really need a youth club to go to every night. A multi-use games area at the park might also help to keep them occupied. Having a riding arena there will do nothing to help. Anyway, most of the problem youths would probably be too big to ride the ponies that are apparently being planned for the riding project.
Consultation
The people who support the application have not been given any alternatives to the riding arena in its proposed location. It’s been presented as the one and only possibility. It’s not as if residents have been asked if they would like a riding arena in the park, a riding arena elsewhere, something other than a riding arena, or no change at all. The claims of public consultation are untrue. The only time that the public were genuinely consulted on the plans for St. James’ Park was many years ago, probably in the summer of 2005. I have seen the results of that consultation, and many views were expressed. Funnily enough, though, not one single person suggested having a riding arena in the park. There was great support for covered seating, the majority of people supported having another paddock for the city farm when the play area was moved, and there were many other hopes and suggestions. But no-one asked for a riding arena. Despite claims to the contrary, the idea of having a riding arena in the park has not been put out to public consultation. The people who support it already support, and often work with, Gymnasian, so of course they are going to support the riding arena plan. After all, it’s the only plan on offer, and local residents would like there to be more for their children to do. There should be more activities provided for local children, especially free activities (which will not be the case with the riding arena). As far as I can see, the supporters haven’t addressed the fact that the riding arena that they so want will be built on an area that was public open space, available to the whole community.
Trees
The issue of trees has not been adequately addressed. There would normally be a Tree Survey, but there isn’t one. (When Aldi put in a planning application for a new store on Bristol Road, they included a 34-page tree survey, despite the fact that there were no trees on site or likely to be damaged by the development.) The location of a large cherry tree is incorrectly marked on the main plan, so that it appears that it is a long way away from the development. The tree is behind number 29 Albany Street, which means that its roots could well be damaged by the groundworks. Another cherry tree (behind number 41 Albany Street) is missed out all together, so the one tree that is marked seems to be an amalgamation of the two. This is unacceptable. I have no objection in principle to the large Acer tree being pruned back, as long as the work is done in winter and by a competent tree surgeon.
Summary
The planned riding arena is in the wrong location. It should have been planned elsewhere, preferably in conjunction with other development, such as the Railway Triangle, where there would actually have been room for it. It is disgraceful that the council supports the building of anything of this kind on public open space. The council needs to learn to say ‘no’ to its favourite charity.
Yours faithfully,
Kay Powell.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2014 15:23:55 GMT
...and Tracey Hergest's address is still being displayed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 18:47:50 GMT
I've been trying to view the last two documents in the list both today and yesterday, but I get an error message. Is it the same for you?
I see that Tracey's address is still being displayed, so our emails have been ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Jan 29, 2014 2:04:46 GMT
No, I get a 404 for both of them, too. The comment from Saj Patel is new, though, and a typical rehash of the inane rationalisations that went before. Plus, he states there is 'sufficient' open space when just the opposite has been proved...
I am writing to inform you that I support the above mentioned planning
application for the following reasons:-
• The open space for the proposed arena is not used much by the
public/community.
• There is sufficient open spaces available for public enjoyment adjoining the
proposed site.
• The proposed development is highly unlikely to increase any risk of
flooding.
• The proposed development is highly unlikely to result in any increase in
crime and/or anti-social problems.
• A horse riding arena on this area of land will be both a positive and
beneficial asset to the local community and the area, particularly for the
young children in this deprived inner city ward.
• The proposed horse riding arena would make an excellent addition to the City
Farm, which has been truly thriving under the ownership of The Friendship
Cafe/Gymnation.
Yours faithfully,
Cllr Sajid Patel
Barton & Tredworth ward
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2014 15:27:04 GMT
I think that the wording of Saj's comment is identical to the last one back in September. Why is his comment allowed on the website so long after the supposed end to the public consultation period?
I've emailed Development Control and Gavin Jones about the error messages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2014 16:18:57 GMT
Development Control have sent me the Environmental comments in a pdf file. (The other comment, marked Tracey Hergest is a duplication). Apparently, Matt Cloke isn't yet happy with the lighting.
|
|
