Objectors speech regarding school lane development

To the people of Hartwell village. Rightly or wrongly, I objected to this application. My objection was based on trying to secure a proserous future for our Primary school and incresed trafic concerns.

I only had 3 minutes to speak, and this was timed.

Information extracted from Case Officers Report & Application Transport Statement. (V2.0 CFWS)

5. POLICY
The Council has recently adopted the Interim Rural Housing Policy (IRHP).

As per Bullet 5:
• IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF OR IMPROVEMENT TO ESSENTIAL LOCAL SERVICES THAT MAY BE UNDER THREAT (IN PARTICULAR THE LOCAL PRIMARY SCHOOL OR PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES) –

However, this only applies if the application is 1 dwelling over the set percentage SNC. This development does the exact opposite. How can this be allowed? The case officer has recognised this, hence his recommendation No. 6. “No more that 36 dwellings on this site.”

May I draw to your attention that Hartwell Primary School is near full capacity and villagers are struggling to ensure that their children can attend this local primary school. There has been great disappointment from residents that have recently moved into the “Cross’s Grange” estate in Hartwell, where they currently cannot have their children educated locally. A reason they moved into Hartwell.

6.2 THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE:
Clause 6.2 states that the principle development of the site fails to meet the expectations against ‘saved’ Policy H6 and EV2 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan OR the policy requirement of Policy H8.

4.16 NCC EDUCATION: A development of 36 houses would STATISTICALLY add some 9-11 pupils to the primary school,

WHERE WILL PUPILS GO AFTER THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT? THE SCHOOL IS AT CAPACITY! DUE TO CLASS SIZES, THERE IS NO GAURANTEE THAT THESE PUPILS WILL EVEN GET INTO THE SCHOOL.

4.30 HARTWELL PRIMARY SCHOOL: Objection comments
- The schools capacity leaves only 12 spaces available. There is a lack of funding for additional facilities and staff.
- Hartwell has been an excellent standard school for many years and the school do not wish this to alter due to cramped oversized classes.
- Concern about traffic on School Lane. 

4.31 THIRD PARTIES: 20 letters of complaint
4.32
4.33 Petition - 138 signatures.

This petition was rushed to the SNC due to deadline time constraints. Some villagers are disappointed that they were unable to add their signature to the petition.

4.1 PARISH COUNCIL: Hartwell Parish Council raise the following comments:

- With the future likely expansion of Hartwell in the next 10 years the school will need to expand. Additional school land for future expansion with the current plan is not possible. This potential space could be provided as a part of this development – This would be critical.
- The Traffic survey included in the application is not a true reflection as the school was closed due to summer break, should be re-done during term time.

IT DOES NOT MENTION THE CONSTANT TRAFFIC BOTTLENECKS AT “FOREST ROAD/SCHOOL LANE JUNCTION” or “FOREST ROAD BETWEEN THE WAR MEMORIAL AND THE CONSERVATIVE SOCAL CLUB”. It IS BASED ON NATIONAL STATICSICS NOT FACTS! 

It also does not take into consideration the 2 access points in the proposed development that will allow future further development into the field.

County Council site visit was on 22nd December 2009. Hartwell Parish Council invite arrived on 24th December 2009 (Source- Hartwell Parish Council meeting- January 2010).

4.7 Needs Analysis - A housing need survey is due to take place early 2010. 
 

Objector recommendations:

• Development in its current form is objected by village residents. 
• There are no Village resident inputs, but WE will suffer long-term.
• Fear this application is being rushed through without taking into account the real issues.
• Villagers will have a say to the proposal of the new village borders changes for 2012. This will be imminently discussed. Let US decide where and how we want the village to prosper for our community and future generations, in harmony with the new housing need survey and SNC housing requirements. NOT a single developer. 
• The development plan should be at least postponed until these forthcoming discussions.

Thank you for your time. 

See also:

• Housing development near School Lane gets approval
• Proposed School Lane Development - The School Perspective
• Outline planning application School Lane
• Redefinition of the official village bounds set for 2012