My request for a clear statement on what will happen next and when in response to resident's concerns about the work at QE Gardens as set out in my last post has failed to provide any clarity.
I have been told by the Council that "There is no urgency as the site is still work in progress" and that they do not expect to have "a clear position until the autumn planting season".
The Council has offered the reassurance that "The site will be excellent when the job is done".
I have been told that the "matter has been taken out of all perspective" and it is suggested the cooling weather may cool "some of this over reaction".
At the same time a note has been circulated from our local county councillor. He is trying to assist but the note does not given any firm assurances and is at odds with some of what I have been told.
Amidst all of this, the consultation with residents that I was told would happen when it was explained why my urgent business would not be heard is nowhere in sight.
I am quite clear about what residents want - a flat area returned to the village where children can run around, play football or cricket and where dogs can be walked. It is a matter of urgency and I am saddened and disappointed that the Council will not commit to work with residents to reach a solution now.
Saturday, 27 July 2013
Thursday, 25 July 2013
Some progress on Horsell Public Space
There has been some positive progress today on the issue of the slope being added to QE Gardens in Horsell and the loss of flat open space. I summarise below the key events and where we go next.
Petition submitted
Residents today handed a 500 signature petition to Woking Council. The petition calls for the Council to "level out the new mound that is being created in our park to retain the original flat playing area". You can see the full petition here. Congratulations to Fiona, Kerri and Natasha for their amazing effort in collecting all these signatures in just a few days.
Democratic process
In the normal democratic process the Council has 14 days to verify and respond to the petition and it is then put before the next meeting of the Council, with a minimum 7 days notice.
The Council met tonight but does not meet again until the end of September. Recognising this I wondered if I could use the item of "Urgent Business" on the Council meeting agenda to highlight this matter and get an agreed way forward. We can't wait until September.
Urgent Business
I sought guidance from the Borough Solicitor on the grounds for urgent business and felt that this issue met that definition. The solicitor confirmed to me that it is up to the Mayor to decide whether to allow any item of urgent business.
I spoke to the Mayor, outlining the issue to her and my reasons for feeling it fitted the definition of urgent business. Essentially this was that the full scale of the issue only became evident after the deadline for submissions to Thursday's Council meeting and action was needed in the short term, not after the next meeting in late September. The Mayor agreed to include the item but did mention that she had a pre-meeting with the solicitor and Chief Executive in the late afternoon.
I rather expected to hear more of this before the Council meeting and sure enough I had a call from the Mayor around 6pm. The Mayor had been 'advised' that the item was not urgent business and not to accept it on the agenda. Conversation then continued with the solicitor who said that no more work would be done and that residents would now be consulted.
Stopping the work
I did not get a positive response to my repeated requests this week to stop the work but it now seems work will end by tomorrow. I understand no further work will be done for the moment. Whether this was the scheduled end of the work or it is a response to my request and the petition I do not know.
Consultation
My conversation with the solicitor on his recommendation that the Mayor did not take my urgent business indicated that there would now be consultation with residents on whether or not we want a slope. A later conversation I had with another officer of the council suggested this would not be the case. I have asked for clarification.
The Council Meeting
Despite my request for an item of urgent business being turned down I wanted to get confirmation of next steps in the public domain. I raised an item of urgent business at the Council meeting asking that a statement be provided. My request was rejected out of hand.
Next Steps
The next steps are to get confirmation that work has stopped and to get clrify on what consultation will take place and when.
 |
| Cross section of the slope planned for QE Gardens |
Petition submitted
Residents today handed a 500 signature petition to Woking Council. The petition calls for the Council to "level out the new mound that is being created in our park to retain the original flat playing area". You can see the full petition here. Congratulations to Fiona, Kerri and Natasha for their amazing effort in collecting all these signatures in just a few days.
Democratic process
In the normal democratic process the Council has 14 days to verify and respond to the petition and it is then put before the next meeting of the Council, with a minimum 7 days notice.
The Council met tonight but does not meet again until the end of September. Recognising this I wondered if I could use the item of "Urgent Business" on the Council meeting agenda to highlight this matter and get an agreed way forward. We can't wait until September.
Urgent Business
I sought guidance from the Borough Solicitor on the grounds for urgent business and felt that this issue met that definition. The solicitor confirmed to me that it is up to the Mayor to decide whether to allow any item of urgent business.
I spoke to the Mayor, outlining the issue to her and my reasons for feeling it fitted the definition of urgent business. Essentially this was that the full scale of the issue only became evident after the deadline for submissions to Thursday's Council meeting and action was needed in the short term, not after the next meeting in late September. The Mayor agreed to include the item but did mention that she had a pre-meeting with the solicitor and Chief Executive in the late afternoon.
I rather expected to hear more of this before the Council meeting and sure enough I had a call from the Mayor around 6pm. The Mayor had been 'advised' that the item was not urgent business and not to accept it on the agenda. Conversation then continued with the solicitor who said that no more work would be done and that residents would now be consulted.
Stopping the work
I did not get a positive response to my repeated requests this week to stop the work but it now seems work will end by tomorrow. I understand no further work will be done for the moment. Whether this was the scheduled end of the work or it is a response to my request and the petition I do not know.
Consultation
My conversation with the solicitor on his recommendation that the Mayor did not take my urgent business indicated that there would now be consultation with residents on whether or not we want a slope. A later conversation I had with another officer of the council suggested this would not be the case. I have asked for clarification.
The Council Meeting
Despite my request for an item of urgent business being turned down I wanted to get confirmation of next steps in the public domain. I raised an item of urgent business at the Council meeting asking that a statement be provided. My request was rejected out of hand.
Next Steps
The next steps are to get confirmation that work has stopped and to get clrify on what consultation will take place and when.
Future shape of Woking Council
The key Conservative rationale behind this reduction appears to be that other areas with a Conservative majority are doing this and it saves money.
As Liberal Democrat Group Leader I proposed an amendment for a reduction to 33 councillors. The Liberal Democrats felt this could still save money but would be a more realistic reduction whilst giving more flexibility to reflect natural communities in ward boundaries. We also suggested the Council look to save money by moving from papers to electronic materials and posting and sending items by courier less.
Our amendment was rejected.
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
Latest on Horsell Open Space Decimation
Woking Council has responded to my request to stop work at QE Gardens, Horsell in order that a solution may be found to meet the needs of residents and the project.
They say that the work will be completed and it can then be reviewed. Completion is due on Friday.
I have explained that we know exactly how the area will look as we have now all looked at the later planning application in some detail.
We do not want a slope we want a relatively flat piece of land returned to Horsell.
I have reiterated my request for work to stop and discussions to take place on a way forward.
For the background to this issue see my original post here and updated post here.
They say that the work will be completed and it can then be reviewed. Completion is due on Friday.
I have explained that we know exactly how the area will look as we have now all looked at the later planning application in some detail.
We do not want a slope we want a relatively flat piece of land returned to Horsell.
I have reiterated my request for work to stop and discussions to take place on a way forward.
For the background to this issue see my original post here and updated post here.
Monday, 22 July 2013
Horror at Decimation of Horsell Public Amenity Space
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
Public concern is growing and I have now asked the Council to stop work on this area until a solution can be found that works for residents and the project.
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
Finally I have some answers on how a public amenity area at Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Horsell came to be destroyed.
Ten days ago I blogged on resident's horror at the loss of a public amenity space.
I set out the following questions and I now have some answers ...
How could this be major change to our local landscape be described as a minor amendment when it dramatically alters and renders virtually useless a public amenity area?
Council officers insist that this is a minor change and that it was clear from the original planning application what was to be created in this area. Here is the graphic which showed those who looked at the plans online (assuming they could find a suitably old version of Internet Explorer) and people who attended Horsell Residents Association AGM, what the area would look like.
The text to the left of the area refers to excess material being used to stabilise slopes and to creating gentle parkland landform. I don't know about anyone else but I read this as improving the existing slope not creating a whole new, bigger, steeper peak that takes over the area.
Apparently not because the space is not lost, just changed. I am told it can still be used and Natural England "recommend slopes" for children to play on. Children had slopes before, they enjoyed playing on the incline to the Bowls Green. Children also had a flat area to play ball games and run around. They don't have that flat area any more.
I am told there are no safety concerns despite potential users of the footpath being surrounded by a mound 4.49 metres high on one side and boundary fences on the other side.
Public concern is growing and I have now asked the Council to stop work on this area until a solution can be found that works for residents and the project.
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
Finally I have some answers on how a public amenity area at Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Horsell came to be destroyed.
Ten days ago I blogged on resident's horror at the loss of a public amenity space.
I set out the following questions and I now have some answers ...
How could this be major change to our local landscape be described as a minor amendment when it dramatically alters and renders virtually useless a public amenity area?
Council officers insist that this is a minor change and that it was clear from the original planning application what was to be created in this area. Here is the graphic which showed those who looked at the plans online (assuming they could find a suitably old version of Internet Explorer) and people who attended Horsell Residents Association AGM, what the area would look like.
 |
| Graphic showing layout of Horsell Civic Space. Note blue/green wavy line to left of Bowls Club. Is this meant to indicate a slope? |
Who took the decision to make this minor amendment and who (other than residents through the planning process) was consulted on the decision?
No direct responsibility has been taken for making the decision on this. The architects working for the Council on the project drew up the plans. Initially they hoped to get them agreed by Planning without the submission of a planning application. The insistence is that this was always intended. The plans submitted for the later planning application show what is intended. No such plans were included in the original planning application.
Statutory planning consultation was carried out on the minor amendment but only with homes on the High Street, Hill Close and Bury Lane. The wider resident population (including this local councillor) knew nothing of this. I am unclear as to whether Conservative councillors were aware. One councillor talks of closely following progress on this project. Was this missed or was she happy for these changes to the plans to take place?
Are any policies breached by the loss of public amenity space?
Apparently not because the space is not lost, just changed. I am told it can still be used and Natural England "recommend slopes" for children to play on. Children had slopes before, they enjoyed playing on the incline to the Bowls Green. Children also had a flat area to play ball games and run around. They don't have that flat area any more.
 |
| Diagram submitted with later application showing full extent of incline |
The image above shows, from left to right = a tree from the residential boundary, then the proposed re-routed footpath, a huge slope and the hedge to the Bowls Green.
Has a safety assessment taken place?
I am told there are no safety concerns despite potential users of the footpath being surrounded by a mound 4.49 metres high on one side and boundary fences on the other side.
A new question is just why do this at all?
Retention of spoil on site will presumably save a lot of money. Is this a way of reducing project costs?
What Next
Retention of spoil on site will presumably save a lot of money. Is this a way of reducing project costs?
What Next
Anger is growing in Horsell. With schools due to break up this week parents are particularly angry and many have time available to let the Council know their views.
I am fully behind those who object to this decimation of our local amenity space. I want to find a way forward that gives a relatively flat space back to residents as soon as possible.
Friday, 12 July 2013
Horror at loss of Horsell Public Space
Residents of Horsell who have walked past Queen Elizabeth Gardens on the High Street in the last week or so can't have failed to notice major changes to the landscape. Land to the side of the Bowls Club has been dug up and earth has been piled up towards the edge of the bowling green.
I was first alerted to what was going on by residents and went along to see for myself last week. My immediate reaction was to assume the land, which provided a flat, but sloping surface was being flattened in preparation for a diversion of the footpath which runs between the Bowls Club and the Village Hall. A footpath diversion is required to allow for a small extension to the Village Hall and the new Scout Hut which is being built behind the Village Hall.
Further investigation revealed that the plan is to create a steep ridge, running up to the Bowls Club with the diverted footpath running along the edge of the area.
This is how the area looks now. It will be grassed again, but a public amenity space where residents walked dogs, children ran around and played ball games and the location for children's sports events at last year's Jubilee celebrations has been removed and will not return.
"Amendment to planning permission reference PLAN/2012/0225 for a minor amendment to landscaping details that retain spoil on site and re-profile proposed soft landscape areas".
This is far from a minor amendment. Apart from showing the proposal to divert the footpath the original planning application for the new Scout Hut and Village Hall extension makes no mention of any work on the land on the west side of the bowling green. How can wholesale destruction of a public amenity area be described as minor?
Informing Councillors and Residents
Having tracked down the planning application I was very puzzled because it did not look at all familiar to me. Councillors receive a weekly list of the latest planning applications and I always take a least a glance at all of the Horsell applications. I had not seen this one. Investigation revealed that this application had somehow not made it on the weekly list when it was submitted in October. It did make it on the other list that councillors receive on the outcomes of applications (in January) but as it referred to a "minor amendment" and I assumed it referred to land around the new Scout Hut I looked no further.
Neighbouring residents were consulted through the usual planning process. One resident raised concerns. I imagine others merely read the words "minor amendment" and looked no further.
Next Steps
I am very unhappy and concerned about this horrific loss of public space and have written to council officers asking:
- How could this be major change to our local landscape be described as a minor amendment when it dramatically alters and renders virtually useless a public amenity area
- Who took the decision to make this minor amendment and who (other than residents through the planning process) was consulted on the decision
- Are any policies breached by the loss of public amenity space
- Has a safety assessment taken place
UPDATE 22 JULY 2013
Finally have answers to the questions above. Click here for part 2 of this saga.
 |
| Dramatic landscape changes |
I was first alerted to what was going on by residents and went along to see for myself last week. My immediate reaction was to assume the land, which provided a flat, but sloping surface was being flattened in preparation for a diversion of the footpath which runs between the Bowls Club and the Village Hall. A footpath diversion is required to allow for a small extension to the Village Hall and the new Scout Hut which is being built behind the Village Hall.
Further investigation revealed that the plan is to create a steep ridge, running up to the Bowls Club with the diverted footpath running along the edge of the area.
This is how the area looks now. It will be grassed again, but a public amenity space where residents walked dogs, children ran around and played ball games and the location for children's sports events at last year's Jubilee celebrations has been removed and will not return.
How Did It Happen?
It took me some effort to track down how this had happened. After searching I found the planning application PLAN/2012/0915. The application is described as "Amendment to planning permission reference PLAN/2012/0225 for a minor amendment to landscaping details that retain spoil on site and re-profile proposed soft landscape areas".
This is far from a minor amendment. Apart from showing the proposal to divert the footpath the original planning application for the new Scout Hut and Village Hall extension makes no mention of any work on the land on the west side of the bowling green. How can wholesale destruction of a public amenity area be described as minor?
Informing Councillors and Residents
Having tracked down the planning application I was very puzzled because it did not look at all familiar to me. Councillors receive a weekly list of the latest planning applications and I always take a least a glance at all of the Horsell applications. I had not seen this one. Investigation revealed that this application had somehow not made it on the weekly list when it was submitted in October. It did make it on the other list that councillors receive on the outcomes of applications (in January) but as it referred to a "minor amendment" and I assumed it referred to land around the new Scout Hut I looked no further.
Neighbouring residents were consulted through the usual planning process. One resident raised concerns. I imagine others merely read the words "minor amendment" and looked no further.
Next Steps
I am very unhappy and concerned about this horrific loss of public space and have written to council officers asking:
- How could this be major change to our local landscape be described as a minor amendment when it dramatically alters and renders virtually useless a public amenity area
- Who took the decision to make this minor amendment and who (other than residents through the planning process) was consulted on the decision
- Are any policies breached by the loss of public amenity space
- Has a safety assessment taken place
UPDATE 22 JULY 2013
Finally have answers to the questions above. Click here for part 2 of this saga.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)