Notice BoardSat Apr 20 2024 A letter from Community Policing Team Inspector Andy Fee on the 101 system:There has been a significant shift in the way we manage our demand within the Police Service. The Community Policing Model recognises that the Police service is being asked to do more with less and helps to address this fact by resolving the problem at the first point of contract, whilst assessing the Threat, Harm and Risk associated with the contact without necessarily tasking an officer to attend in the first instance. The adage they work to in our Communication Centre is to get it right first time. Consequently, by doing more initially, this has seen an increase in waiting times for people to be answered. There are several factors that need to be considered here. The first point is that under the CPT Model, calls for immediate help have seen an improvement. If calls were answered quicker and pushed through the system, this would not be the case. I hope this point is accepted as being the right stance. The second point is that we have gone through, and continue to go through, a significant recruitment phase for many roles within the CPT. Police Officers, PCSO, Local Crime Investigators and Prisoner Transport Team members have all been recruited. Where do we find people with the right skills to do these roles? One area is our Communication Centre. These are members of Police Staff who have been trained in aspects of law and have good communication skills. It is not surprising that they then wish to use their training and continue to develop. Consequently recruitment and retention of staff is a significant factor, however to reassure you our Communication Centre Leadership team have a well-established rolling recruitment programme in place. SOUTHWICK PARISH COUNCILELECTION OF COUNCILLORS – VOTING DAY - 4 MAY 2017 Do you have the initiative, commitment, dedication and some free time to become a Parish Councillor in order to support and carry out the wishes of the majority of Southwick parishioners? If you have, now is the time to apply and submit your nomination as a candidate before the nomination closing date of 4 April 2017. There are 11 Parish Councillor seats to be contested. Full details may be found on the Wiltshire Council web site at: http://elections.wiltshire.gov.uk/Home/Division/2653 Nomination forms may be obtained from the Electoral Services Team, Wiltshire Council, County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN from the Returning Officer who will, at the request of an elector for any electoral area prepare a nomination paper for signature. Nomination papers must be delivered by hand to the ‘Electoral Services Nomination Desk’ at any of the following designated Wiltshire Council Offices: County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, BA14 8JN Monkton Park, Chippenham, SN15 1ER Crossmolina Buildings, Snuff Street, Devizes SN10 1FG Fiver Rivers Health & Wellbeing Centre, Hulse Road, Salisbury SP1 3NR Delivery of Nomination papers can take place on any day between the hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday but no later than 4pm on Tuesday, 4th April 2017. If the election is contested, because there are more than 11 nominations for the 11 seats, then the poll will take place on Thursday, 4th May 2017. Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUTThis document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane. This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.
“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”
Housing already provided for
“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”
The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.
The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.
The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?
There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.
In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.
A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.
It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.
SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.
SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.
SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’. If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.
There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.
Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application. The Clerk Southwick Parish Council For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble…………………………………. Dated: ……………21/2/2017………………………………… Powered by CuteNews
|
News and ArticlesA letter from Community Policing Team Inspector Andy Fee on the 101 system:There has been a significant shift in the way we manage our demand within the Police Service. The Community Policing Model recognises that the Police service is being asked to do more with less and helps to address this fact by resolving the problem at the first point of contract, whilst assessing the Threat, Harm and Risk associated with the contact without necessarily tasking an officer to attend in the first instance. The adage they work to in our Communication Centre is to get it right first time. Consequently, by doing more initially, this has seen an increase in waiting times for people to be answered. There are several factors that need to be considered here. The first point is that under the CPT Model, calls for immediate help have seen an improvement. If calls were answered quicker and pushed through the system, this would not be the case. I hope this point is accepted as being the right stance. The second point is that we have gone through, and continue to go through, a significant recruitment phase for many roles within the CPT. Police Officers, PCSO, Local Crime Investigators and Prisoner Transport Team members have all been recruited. Where do we find people with the right skills to do these roles? One area is our Communication Centre. These are members of Police Staff who have been trained in aspects of law and have good communication skills. It is not surprising that they then wish to use their training and continue to develop. Consequently recruitment and retention of staff is a significant factor, however to reassure you our Communication Centre Leadership team have a well-established rolling recruitment programme in place. SOUTHWICK PARISH COUNCILELECTION OF COUNCILLORS – VOTING DAY - 4 MAY 2017 Do you have the initiative, commitment, dedication and some free time to become a Parish Councillor in order to support and carry out the wishes of the majority of Southwick parishioners? If you have, now is the time to apply and submit your nomination as a candidate before the nomination closing date of 4 April 2017. There are 11 Parish Councillor seats to be contested. Full details may be found on the Wiltshire Council web site at: http://elections.wiltshire.gov.uk/Home/Division/2653 Nomination forms may be obtained from the Electoral Services Team, Wiltshire Council, County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN from the Returning Officer who will, at the request of an elector for any electoral area prepare a nomination paper for signature. Nomination papers must be delivered by hand to the ‘Electoral Services Nomination Desk’ at any of the following designated Wiltshire Council Offices: County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, BA14 8JN Monkton Park, Chippenham, SN15 1ER Crossmolina Buildings, Snuff Street, Devizes SN10 1FG Fiver Rivers Health & Wellbeing Centre, Hulse Road, Salisbury SP1 3NR Delivery of Nomination papers can take place on any day between the hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday but no later than 4pm on Tuesday, 4th April 2017. If the election is contested, because there are more than 11 nominations for the 11 seats, then the poll will take place on Thursday, 4th May 2017. Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUTThis document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane. This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.
“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”
Housing already provided for
“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”
The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.
The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.
The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?
There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.
In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.
A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.
It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.
SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.
SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.
SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’. If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.
There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.
Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application. The Clerk Southwick Parish Council For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble…………………………………. Dated: ……………21/2/2017………………………………… Powered by CuteNews
A letter from Community Policing Team Inspector Andy Fee on the 101 system:There has been a significant shift in the way we manage our demand within the Police Service. The Community Policing Model recognises that the Police service is being asked to do more with less and helps to address this fact by resolving the problem at the first point of contract, whilst assessing the Threat, Harm and Risk associated with the contact without necessarily tasking an officer to attend in the first instance. The adage they work to in our Communication Centre is to get it right first time. Consequently, by doing more initially, this has seen an increase in waiting times for people to be answered. There are several factors that need to be considered here. The first point is that under the CPT Model, calls for immediate help have seen an improvement. If calls were answered quicker and pushed through the system, this would not be the case. I hope this point is accepted as being the right stance. The second point is that we have gone through, and continue to go through, a significant recruitment phase for many roles within the CPT. Police Officers, PCSO, Local Crime Investigators and Prisoner Transport Team members have all been recruited. Where do we find people with the right skills to do these roles? One area is our Communication Centre. These are members of Police Staff who have been trained in aspects of law and have good communication skills. It is not surprising that they then wish to use their training and continue to develop. Consequently recruitment and retention of staff is a significant factor, however to reassure you our Communication Centre Leadership team have a well-established rolling recruitment programme in place. SOUTHWICK PARISH COUNCILELECTION OF COUNCILLORS – VOTING DAY - 4 MAY 2017 Do you have the initiative, commitment, dedication and some free time to become a Parish Councillor in order to support and carry out the wishes of the majority of Southwick parishioners? If you have, now is the time to apply and submit your nomination as a candidate before the nomination closing date of 4 April 2017. There are 11 Parish Councillor seats to be contested. Full details may be found on the Wiltshire Council web site at: http://elections.wiltshire.gov.uk/Home/Division/2653 Nomination forms may be obtained from the Electoral Services Team, Wiltshire Council, County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN from the Returning Officer who will, at the request of an elector for any electoral area prepare a nomination paper for signature. Nomination papers must be delivered by hand to the ‘Electoral Services Nomination Desk’ at any of the following designated Wiltshire Council Offices: County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, BA14 8JN Monkton Park, Chippenham, SN15 1ER Crossmolina Buildings, Snuff Street, Devizes SN10 1FG Fiver Rivers Health & Wellbeing Centre, Hulse Road, Salisbury SP1 3NR Delivery of Nomination papers can take place on any day between the hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday but no later than 4pm on Tuesday, 4th April 2017. If the election is contested, because there are more than 11 nominations for the 11 seats, then the poll will take place on Thursday, 4th May 2017. Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUTThis document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane. This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.
“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”
Housing already provided for
“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”
The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.
The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.
The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?
There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.
In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.
A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.
It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.
SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.
SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.
SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’. If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.
There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.
Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application. The Clerk Southwick Parish Council For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble…………………………………. Dated: ……………21/2/2017………………………………… Powered by CuteNews
|
SouthwickA letter from Community Policing Team Inspector Andy Fee on the 101 system:There has been a significant shift in the way we manage our demand within the Police Service. The Community Policing Model recognises that the Police service is being asked to do more with less and helps to address this fact by resolving the problem at the first point of contract, whilst assessing the Threat, Harm and Risk associated with the contact without necessarily tasking an officer to attend in the first instance. The adage they work to in our Communication Centre is to get it right first time. Consequently, by doing more initially, this has seen an increase in waiting times for people to be answered. There are several factors that need to be considered here. The first point is that under the CPT Model, calls for immediate help have seen an improvement. If calls were answered quicker and pushed through the system, this would not be the case. I hope this point is accepted as being the right stance. The second point is that we have gone through, and continue to go through, a significant recruitment phase for many roles within the CPT. Police Officers, PCSO, Local Crime Investigators and Prisoner Transport Team members have all been recruited. Where do we find people with the right skills to do these roles? One area is our Communication Centre. These are members of Police Staff who have been trained in aspects of law and have good communication skills. It is not surprising that they then wish to use their training and continue to develop. Consequently recruitment and retention of staff is a significant factor, however to reassure you our Communication Centre Leadership team have a well-established rolling recruitment programme in place. SOUTHWICK PARISH COUNCILELECTION OF COUNCILLORS – VOTING DAY - 4 MAY 2017 Do you have the initiative, commitment, dedication and some free time to become a Parish Councillor in order to support and carry out the wishes of the majority of Southwick parishioners? If you have, now is the time to apply and submit your nomination as a candidate before the nomination closing date of 4 April 2017. There are 11 Parish Councillor seats to be contested. Full details may be found on the Wiltshire Council web site at: http://elections.wiltshire.gov.uk/Home/Division/2653 Nomination forms may be obtained from the Electoral Services Team, Wiltshire Council, County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8JN from the Returning Officer who will, at the request of an elector for any electoral area prepare a nomination paper for signature. Nomination papers must be delivered by hand to the ‘Electoral Services Nomination Desk’ at any of the following designated Wiltshire Council Offices: County Hall, Bythesea Road, Trowbridge, BA14 8JN Monkton Park, Chippenham, SN15 1ER Crossmolina Buildings, Snuff Street, Devizes SN10 1FG Fiver Rivers Health & Wellbeing Centre, Hulse Road, Salisbury SP1 3NR Delivery of Nomination papers can take place on any day between the hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Friday but no later than 4pm on Tuesday, 4th April 2017. If the election is contested, because there are more than 11 nominations for the 11 seats, then the poll will take place on Thursday, 4th May 2017. Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUTThis document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane. This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.
“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”
Housing already provided for
“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”
The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.
The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.
The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?
There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.
In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.
A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.
It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.
SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.
SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.
SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’. If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.
There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.
Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application. The Clerk Southwick Parish Council For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble…………………………………. Dated: ……………21/2/2017………………………………… Powered by CuteNews
Local travel newsThe link below is to a Wiltshire Times webpage which has a map centred on Trowbridge but extends to Bath, Chippenham, Frome, Shepton Mallet and Warminster. There is a list of Latest Incidents. Live traffic and travel news |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Top Visits:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
