|
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 27, 2014 11:37:44 GMT
So that's this meeting...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 17:28:42 GMT
Er... no. There's a full council meeting at 6pm today. That's where I'm off to now. I've just typed up and printed off my questions - I found out long ago that, if you offer the questions in written form as well as reading them out, they can't be misunderstood or misrecorded.
There's a new letter from Highways on the document list, after I pointed out to Gavin that the previous one was the same as the first one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 27, 2014 18:15:10 GMT
Wow, I really misread the website. March...
Darn parents evening means I may miss it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 28, 2014 3:37:07 GMT
I did pop in to the meeting around 7, during the interval, hoping to pick up some docs at least, but they were thin on the ground. Proper discussion was scarce too, it was mostly the Labour and Tory groups arguing over semantics (I thoguht the latter were right, 'major organisations' doesn't mean just Aspire). I had a letter from Gavin Jones which I've typed out. I hope to reply to it tomorrow. My chief issues with it are that the error with the plan was a better reason for withdrawal than 'lighting problems', and that he's missing the point. It's not that home addresses were published, but that they kept being published, despite there being no good reason to do so in the first place. and I am goingto ask for the documentation of whatever discussion was had about the change of policy... 7th February 2014Dear Mr Kilker, RE: Complaint concerning planning application 13/00719/FUL for the erection of a new all weather 40X20 riding arena/manege complete with exterior fencing, lighting and drainage on the St James City Farm site adjacent to St James Park.I am writing further to your complaint about the way in which the above application has been handled. As you are aware the above application was withdrawn at the request of the applicant and a new application (reference: 13/01311/FUL) has been submitted and is currently undergoing consideration. Turning to the matters you have raised in your complaint, whilst we set a deadline for comments to be received which is based on the statutory minimum consultation period, we do accept all comments beyond such time up to the point when a planning application is finally determined. As regards the matter of the 'Riding Area Adjustments' plan being submitted that contained only the writing and not the site plan itself, the reason for this is that whilst the writing on the plan was still relevant the actual plan itself was incorrect due to the red line area not corresponding with the application site area, and the plan had been superseded by a subsequent revision to correct this error. In order to try to reduce any confusion this incorrect plan was redacted with only the writing remaining on it, as that was still relevant. However, as you had requested that the plan as well as the plan's writing be shown (despite it being incorrect), it was subsequently added to Public Access but marked as being 'superseded', as it had been superseded by the correct version. You are correct that the addresses of respondents should not be shown on Public Access as the accompanying information note that appears on Public Access indicates that personal information, including addresses will not be displayed. I can only apologise for any representations that have been published on Public Access and which contain home addresses. However, you should be aware that this information note will be changed with the next upgrade of Public Access that is due at the end of this month, and it is our future intention to publish the home addresses (but still not the phone numbers, email addresses or signatures) of respondents, which is in line with the practice of most other Local Planning Authorities. However, until then it is the case that home addresses should not be published and I have again informed our Business Support section to that effect. I trust that this answers the matter you have raised but if you wish to escalate your complaint then you should do so in writing and a more senior Manager or Director will investigate it. For your information I attach a link to the Council's complaints procedure: forms.gloucester.gov.uk/contactusforms/ComplaintForm.aspxYour sincerely, Gavin Jones Development Control Service Manager |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2014 14:07:18 GMT
I left the meeting at around 6.30pm. I'm not too interested in listening to two sides bicker over the budget. The only interesting budget-related fact was contained in a question from an allotment holder (Estcourt Park), who pointed out that their claims about allotment charges were false. They had tried to greatly increase the charges without consultation and had claimed that there was no change. Saj waffled a nonsensical reply and was further questioned by the plot holder. Finally I think he made a promise that the charges would not be increased until there had been proper consultation. Isn't it just typical of him to introduce changes to the detriment of plot holders without consultation?
I was the next in line to ask questions. Originally I had five, but I withdrew my last on hearing the answer to the fourth - they plan to put the new MUGA (if and when they have the funds) in the middle of the park, where there is currently some tarmac and youths play football. Oh, great! If there is to be a MUGA, it will block part of the unofficial football pitch. How is that an improvement? It all stems from the decision to sell off the area that originally had the children's play area and would have been suitable for a MUGA. When they built a MUGA on Parry Field, they didn't stick it on the football pitch!
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 28, 2014 15:08:23 GMT
It all stems from the decision to sell off the area that originally had the children's play area and would have been suitable for a MUGA. And in turn, I guess that stems from Gymnasian being in the driving seat the whole time. It stinks to high hell, but Phil Staddon's actions in appointing certain individuals will never be reversed while their names are kept confidential. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Mar 1, 2014 3:43:40 GMT
Something to consider. What the city council view as 'open space'...
Issues relating to Public Open Space and Public use of Private Open Space
Written Response to Questions submitted at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 February 2014 by Kay Powell
Response provided by Councillor Saj Patel
Following a period of public consultation, the Open Space Strategy has been amended so as to take into account comments made. The final Strategy is due to be considered by Cabinet in March 2014.
The comments relating to the Barton and Tredworth Ward – Open Space Profile has been amended since the draft version and it is being proposed to included the following statement –
St James’ City Farm is located in part of St James’ Park. The land is leased from the Council and the farm is run by GymNation, a local Charity. As the farm is free to access and is generally open to the public every day, this area has been included in the Open Space calculation for the Ward.
The area being used for the City Farm, is therefore, included within total space shown for St James’ Park (1.26 ha). St James’ City Farm is shown as “Urban farm, open to the public.”
This would apply to other areas of open space that are not owned by the City Council, but are accessible for public recreation.
At the time of drafting the Strategy, the proposal for a Riding Centre has yet to be considered by the Planning Committee.
The proposal regarding the MUGA is to upgrade the existing half MUGA to a full size (approx 36m x 18m). This would be in the centre of the park and a sufficient distance away from residential premises.
The reference to Tree Wardens has been removed from the amended version of the Strategy following comments made during the consultation period. They were still active at the time of publishing the draft Open Space Strategy.
As part of any developing Open Space Strategy, it would be wrong to not assess all areas of Open Space and determine whether they still provide a quality amenity facility. During such a review, we will consider whether sites are still being used for the most appropriate purpose and if not consider alternative use. This could include re-purposing them for an alternative use, ie changing from Open Space to Allotment site, or if there is no longer a use or benefit in maintaining the space, then disposal would be considered. An agreed criteria would be used to establish whether the space could be used for a different purpose or whether it was suitable for disposal, this would include the ongoing costs of maintaining the site.
The garden on the side of the Trust Centre on Conduit Street is still under the ownership of the Trust. Due to a restrictive covenant on the registered title to the garden land, which restricts its use to a public garden only, it can only be sold or passed on for use as a public garden. For practical reasons, the garden is not open at the present time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 14:19:52 GMT
There's a lot of bullshit in that response. In particular, Saj has not addressed the fact that the city farm was shown separately from St. James' Park in the list of open space on page 38 of the draft document; this meant that it was being included in the 1.26 hectares of St. James' Park (under 'public space') and also being listed on its own as 'private/other open space'. I didn't clock this fact when I looked at the document originally; I simply noted that St. James' Park was 1.26 hectares and that the ward was seriously deficient in both quantity and quality of open space.
Given that the city farm has not been public open space since 1st August 2011, it is wrong to include it as part of the calculation of public open space. It is interesting that the MUGA at Widden School that is open for local kids to use for free is listed under 'private/other open space'. Worse still, Saj knows perfectly well that before the document goes to cabinet for approval the planning application to fence off about 850 square metres of the area for exclusive use as a riding arena will have been approved by the planning committee, and that it will be open to only those users who have paid to have riding lessons there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 15:18:15 GMT
I see that the Open Space Strategy is to be passed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Monday. One last chance to try to knock some sense into the bunch of useless arselickers. I will be amazed if even one of them stands up for truth or justice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 15:37:42 GMT
I see that Hucclecote has a Draft Open Space Action Plan. Barton & Tredworth could have had one too by this time if we had anyone in charge who knew what they were doing and had the best interests of the ward at heart. Instead, Saj Patel thinks that there is sufficient open space...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 15:42:37 GMT
Oh, and another thing - under Westgate Ward, I see that Brunswick Square Lawn and the canal towpath (both open to the public for free all day, every day) are listed as 'private/other open space', which makes the inclusion of the fenced-off city farm under 'public space' that bit more hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Mar 2, 2014 11:34:38 GMT
Well, my comment doesn't seem to have appeared yet, but I sent it on Friday afternoon...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2014 18:03:47 GMT
I've just noticed that the letter above says 7th April. Which month did you mean?
I'm now off to the council again to have one last go at the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If only they would scrutinise, as their name says.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe K on Mar 3, 2014 20:01:14 GMT
D'oh, February...
Regarding this Open Space business, I wonder that the Glebe doesn't rate a mention. Not sure who owns it. Kingfisher Church?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2014 17:19:59 GMT
The Glebe (almost certainly owned by the county council) is down as Kingfisher Church/Tredworth Rugby Club because the person who wrote the Open Space Strategy doesn't know her arse from her elbow. I can say this because last night the Overview & Scrutiny Committee tore into the whole document. I was really surprised that they were so vehement, particularly Andrew Gravells (who is a darned good local councillor, even if I disagree with his politics), Chris Chatterton and Jan Lugg. Chatterton even pointed out that a gigantic mistake in the designation of Holmleigh Park (Grange ward, two-thirds owned by Beaufort Academy, and about to be fenced off to keep out the public) as all public open space had not been corrected, despite numerous complaints by him. The only councillor who had nothing at all to say about anything was Said Hansdot. He's up for re-election in May, so you'd think that he would have found something to say, to make it look as though he's paying attention. The officer who wrote the report, Kay Lillington, was not there to answer questions, which particularly infuriated a number of committee members. Instead, her boss, a man named Ross, who I didn't know, tried to answer the many points raised by the councillors, and failed dismally.
I raised the issue of the 'community garden' that I thought was going to be constructed next to the Anglo-Asian Centre in Charles Street, but Paul James claimed that it had been sold off and it was up to the centre as to what they did with it. That's not how I remember the discussions back in 2007. Its current designation is open space, as far as I can see from the planning website, so why is it not included in the Open Space Strategy?
I tried to question Saj on the ridiculous designation of all of the city farm as public open space, but his reply was pretty much the same as his previous claim - that he had never been refused entry when he'd visited. That's still not public open space, especially as they only open from 9.30am till 4.30pm and are about to completely fence off at least 850 square metres of land. Saj really is a dreadful public speaker and doesn't have logical answers to questions unless he has been coached beforehand. I didn't even understand half of the waffle that he came out with. I did learn that he supposedly never had any power at the BTCT (is that correct?) and is now a director (not a Trustee) at BTD.
The councillors recommended that the cabinet should not adopt the document in its current state on Wednesday. Both Saj and Paul argued that they might adopt the Open Space Strategy on Wednesday and then fix the faults later! Can you believe that? There were too many faults for the document to be fixed in only two days, and Kay Lillington is part-time anyway.
Later this evening, I'm going to argue the case against the planning application at the Planning Committee meeting. Fancy coming along? It starts at 6pm. The riding arena application is well down the list, but it could be bumped up the list at the discretion of the chairman, so it could be at just after 6pm, or not till 8pm, depending on the other applications.
|
|
