By marxsparx >> 12 Jan 2010 03:03 pm
I think Daylight Gambler is right, there are many benefits of new developments. I add my penyworth to the debate accordingly.
1) Most of us live in houses that were built in "somebodys back yard" even the oldest thatched cottage was nodoubt built on a farmers field. I wonder how many complained in 1851 about the new church being built in Hartwell ?
2) Developments should be sustainable. The school is already turning away children who live within a stones throw of it (because of legislation). Which makes the approved deveopment in my opinion unsustainable.
3) The UK needs more houses, they have to go somewhere.
4) Developers will be obliged to make contributions (known as section 106 payments) to for example giving the community centre a lick of paint, providing new play equipment and money to the school. However sometimes the council holds on to the cash and doesnt pass it on. Which is the case with the cross's grange development. Hartwell did get a new and improved road layout at the end of Park Road paid for by Bloors.
5) siric hits the nail on the head, however just as the land owner has the right to sell his land for housing (STP) we also have the right to say "not in my back yard please" the planners are supposed to follow the correct prevailing policy. And hoepfuly make the correct decision.
6) It would appear that the decison has been made many months ago for this development to get the green light, the committee meeting was just a formality.
7) My predicition is within 10 years the school is relocated to the new site at the end of stocking close, and the rest of the Farmers field is filled with 100+ houses.
By daylight_gambler >> 12 Jan 2010 08:20 am
Ultimately our livestyles have changed - we leave home as soon as we can and we get divorced more, and ultimately this means that there is a demand for housing. We can't blame the landowners - in the same situation I would sell my land if it made substantial more money than farming it. Ultimately this, and local/national government pressure, means that Hartwell will have to grow if we like it or not.
There are benefits to new developments - all of the affordable housing on Cross's Grange went to people who have at least a 10 year connection to the village (a criteria the landowner campaigned for), and it would not surprise me if the same is true with this development.
Also a high proportion of the active users of this website are relatively new to the village (I only moved here about 3.5 years ago) - and I believe that people who use this website are more likely to participate in community events and use local services (I hope so anyway, as that is one of the reasons I set it up!)
This development (and it isn't really too much of a leap of faith to imagine the rest of that field, and the one behind the pub by Cross's Grange following) also helps recentralise the village, and the planning gains received should help to improve the community facilities for everyone.
However, whilst developments in general can be advantageous, they have to be part of a plan - the village needs to have an idea of where it is going, and what improvements are required to ensure that growth is sustainable, and currently I don't think that is the case. The proposed idea of using the other part of the field as a possible new site for the school was not known to the Parish Council (not sure about the School itself) until after the meeting - something which is a pretty major change in the village.
But lets not forget one thing - we are talking about a handful of houses compared to the thousands of houses planned in other communities in the county. I seem to remember reading the other day about one village in north Northamptonshire where there is a plan to double the population of the village with new housing. Thankfully NIMBY!!
By Howard-Canitbe >> 11 Jan 2010 10:06 pm
So, it seems that this village is so vastly overdeveloped, that an additional 36 houses, some of which, shock horror!! may be inhabited by families with children, will bring the whole infrastructure to its knees.
Great heavens, should we also object to houses being sold to larger families than already inhabit them, or maybe cast out those who are planning to have some or more children. You never know, one more person treading our overstretched pavements might cause the whole area to sink into the murky mire we float upon.
All you deniers of progress, all you who are scadalised by landowners doing what they are legaly entitled to do with their land, all you who cast there words of malcontent against progress and the needs of people to have adequate housing, think of this. Lets stop all development, lets watch as local businesses are forced to move away because they cannot find a local labour force, lets stand idle whilst the population of the village declines as people move away to find work, lets cheer as the shop becomes unviable and closes, and the pub follows suite. Let's put up streamers as the school population declines and it shuts from lack of use. Lets dance with glee as the already meagre bus service becomes untenable and vanishes all together.
Let's re-write the village signs. Hartwell - NIMBYs only welcome.
Reports suggest that the development will add upto 11 children to the schools population. That is approximately 5%. If any of the objectors have children of your own, especially if you used the school, you should be ashamed. Those of you who cast stones of protest and who own your own homes, hold your tongues.
The poplulation of this village has been increasing since the keystone of the first house was laid. Rather than bemoaning that someone else might try to provide a home for their families within walking distance of your own, take the option to welcome this opportunity to influence how the village grows. Do not, please, fling your Canutish offal of opposition where it does nothing but waste space in the ether.
By siric >> 11 Jan 2010 09:22 pm
At risk of getting driven out of the village borders by a mob of pitch fork weilding locals....
Roads, are roads. They all come with cars and risk. Its my own responsibility to ensure my childs safety when she is near one.
The development is 36 houses, with an estimate of extra pupils for Hartwell Primary of 11. With the current no. being 196, that would be a growth of around 5%. I haven't noticed a huge increase in children or traffic since Cross's Grange opened.
People need houses, families need houses, our children need houses. Some of the proposed houses are to be 'affordable', which hopefully will help local people in need of housing stay within the village.
There are issues regarding the future of the school and the possible need for its expansion. Hartwell School is excellent, but not just because it is a small village school. It is excellent due to the high standards and dedication of its staff and I'm sure the same staff would dedicate themselves to maintaining those standards.
In effect the land owner concerned is selling off his own back garden to build houses on! It is his land, he owns it. He is a member of this community as his family have been for many years.
The classic 'not in my back garden' attitude is not morally right either!
By wolf_in_sheeps_clothing >> 11 Jan 2010 02:40 pm
Weebly wrote:... something to alloe for this?
Only if you're "Vera" !
sorry...couldn't resist
By KTMRM >> 11 Jan 2010 11:42 am
It's all very well the council passing permission to build and the land owner having to adhere to the additional clauses which have been added to the application.... but what about the safety of our children whilst all this working is going on. It was bad enough with traffic cutting through Amberley Road and Blacksmiths Way or driving up Ashton Road during school run time, it's going to be much worse and there be many more children on School Lane.... Is our council planning department full of unconcerning town people... or have all their children grown up and they no longer attend school... not that it matters... the powers that be, which I did NOT vote for, are determined that we are no longer be a green country... but a built up over populated, over built, over price and over taxed Country!!!!!!
What about the school... yes I am concerned that I may not get my children in and yes I am concerned that if they do get in how much, will the excellent standards which we have come to expect of Hartwell Primary have been diluted due to the expenasion and over crowding caused by extra residents in the village....
Land owner, and you know who you are, go build houses in your own back garden and see how much you like it....over populate your own house dodge lorries, vans and cars on your own driveway. Do not inflict our children... it's not fair and morally not right!!!!
By Weebly >> 11 Jan 2010 10:15 am
That makes quite interesting reading.
Regarding one point :-
- Parking on School Lane should be prohibited and parents who drive kids to school should park in the Community Centre car park.
If the development goes ahead and people are made to park in the community centre - the road to the new development would need to be crossed to get into school - would we then get a crossing warden or something to alloe for this?
By daylight_gambler >> 10 Jan 2010 11:43 am
Just came across the recommendation from the planning officer for the School Lane development on the Parish Council Planning page of the site: http://www.hartwellvillage.com/groups/H ... l/Planning, as well as the Parish Council comments on the development.
The planning officer recommendation was presumably the basis of the subsequent decision at the meeting on Thursday.
in the top righthand corner.
