Bournemouth EchoNew homes plan deferred in row over green space (From Bournemouth Echo)

When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.

New homes plan deferred in row over green space

Bournemouth Echo: PROTESTS: Residents view the plans for Chichester Walk, inset PROTESTS: Residents view the plans for Chichester Walk, inset

THE sheer number of residents protesting at plans for 13 affordable homes in Merley, has led to a re-think.

A 550 signature petition and representation from the local MP led to Poole’s cabinet agreeing to defer a decision on proposals for two and three-bed homes, using half of the former youth centre site in Chichester Walk.

Residents including Lynne Witt of Chichester Walk and Lorraine Mindlesohn were among those objecting to the loss of an open space where children could play in safety.

“People come from all over Merley to play in there because it is a safe environment,” said Lynne. The next door pre-school also voiced traffic safety concerns.

The recommendation was for the site to be taken off the list until the core strategy was updated and consulted on. However Cllr Karen Rampton, cabinet portfolio holder for housing, proposed an amendment that it should be deferred.

Members agreed to defer it until revised plans and strategies have been considered, taking into account the views that have been expressed.

“We desperately need some more affordable homes in Poole,” said Cllr Rampton.

She said she heard at the recent summit on poverty at Bournemouth University that it takes the average person in Poole nine times average earnings to be able to buy a house.

“I am quite determined something does happen there,” she said. “It is quite a contentious issue.”

That could mean a smaller number of affordable homes on the land, which she pointed out was a brownfield site.

“If we don’t use brownfield sites like that and infill housing we are not going to meet our quota,” she said.

Borough of Poole has approved proposals to deliver 100 new affordable homes on its land. In April this year 5,551 people were on the housing register. From 2012 the council lost 60 properties through right to buy and the number of new homes built or acquired for affordable housing was 45.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:43pm Wed 18 Jun 14

gw12345 says...

Great to hear that Borough of Poole and Cllr Rampton plan on taking onto account of the views of residents “I am quite determined something does happen there,” Also they keep on rolling out those stats but keep failing to qualify them, by their own definition, the majority of those on the housing list are 'adequatly housed'. If representation from our MP and the support of ALL of the elected ward cllr's for Merley is not enough to stop Borough of Poole building on this much valued community asset wich is an OPEN GREEN SPACE then look out the rest of Poole as nowhere will be safe...
Great to hear that Borough of Poole and Cllr Rampton plan on taking onto account of the views of residents “I am quite determined something does happen there,” Also they keep on rolling out those stats but keep failing to qualify them, by their own definition, the majority of those on the housing list are 'adequatly housed'. If representation from our MP and the support of ALL of the elected ward cllr's for Merley is not enough to stop Borough of Poole building on this much valued community asset wich is an OPEN GREEN SPACE then look out the rest of Poole as nowhere will be safe... gw12345
  • Score: 13

4:49pm Wed 18 Jun 14

bh21spider says...

The term "brownfield" or previously developed is not an accurate description for this site The NPPF states "Land which is or was occupied by a permanent
structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed)".
There has never been a "permanent structure" on this site, nor has planning permission ever been granted for such a structure.
The term "brownfield" or previously developed is not an accurate description for this site The NPPF states "Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed)". There has never been a "permanent structure" on this site, nor has planning permission ever been granted for such a structure. bh21spider
  • Score: 14

5:08pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Concerned_Merley_Resident says...

As stated by both posters above:

Echo - the term "brownfield" is not correct in the instance. The land is in fact "surplus" according to Borough of Poole after being "unclassified" for a period of time. In fact, since Merley was built the land was originally denoted as "educational" as it was originally intended for a school - but subsequently housed the old youth club which has since been demolished (which was only a temporary structure and and as such the land was never previously developed upon..........

Can you ask Councillor Rampton why she chooses not to present the actual case, in order to subvert and deceive the residents of Poole?

It is quite clear that Councillor Rampton has an agenda to build anywhere she feels can be developed - look at Bearwood.........it would seem she has a problem with the Lib Dems who are the Merley and Bearwood Ward Councillors.

This whole mess has been caused by a council who feel they can do what they want and not be held accountable - several people have demonstrated that BoP have failed to follow process with respect to almost every facet of this proposal - from land designation to consultation to planning etc - and when challenged have gone suspiciously quiet?

And as for democracy - well, a cross party committee deemed that the risk associated with the project was not appropriate - after all it is a green urban space that is enjoyed by all the community, houses a busy and thriving preschool, a major pedestrian route would be removed to provide car park spaces.......I could go on and on........

Only for that decision to be turned over by a Poole Council Cabinet - who are solely Conservative?!?!

Can anyone say that is democratic! (and guess what - when asked directly BoP have refused to comment.........

Oh - and before it gets said - no-one who has challenged this is NIMBYist or anti social housing. Everyone who is against this is agreed there is a need that needs to be addressed, but in a suitable and considerate (and transparent, not being lied to by our council) manner, in an entirely appropriate location - not a recreation ground!
As stated by both posters above: Echo - the term "brownfield" is not correct in the instance. The land is in fact "surplus" according to Borough of Poole after being "unclassified" for a period of time. In fact, since Merley was built the land was originally denoted as "educational" as it was originally intended for a school - but subsequently housed the old youth club which has since been demolished (which was only a temporary structure and and as such the land was never previously developed upon.......... Can you ask Councillor Rampton why she chooses not to present the actual case, in order to subvert and deceive the residents of Poole? It is quite clear that Councillor Rampton has an agenda to build anywhere she feels can be developed - look at Bearwood.........it would seem she has a problem with the Lib Dems who are the Merley and Bearwood Ward Councillors. This whole mess has been caused by a council who feel they can do what they want and not be held accountable - several people have demonstrated that BoP have failed to follow process with respect to almost every facet of this proposal - from land designation to consultation to planning etc - and when challenged have gone suspiciously quiet? And as for democracy - well, a cross party committee deemed that the risk associated with the project was not appropriate - after all it is a green urban space that is enjoyed by all the community, houses a busy and thriving preschool, a major pedestrian route would be removed to provide car park spaces.......I could go on and on........ Only for that decision to be turned over by a Poole Council Cabinet - who are solely Conservative?!?! Can anyone say that is democratic! (and guess what - when asked directly BoP have refused to comment......... Oh - and before it gets said - no-one who has challenged this is NIMBYist or anti social housing. Everyone who is against this is agreed there is a need that needs to be addressed, but in a suitable and considerate (and transparent, not being lied to by our council) manner, in an entirely appropriate location - not a recreation ground! Concerned_Merley_Resident
  • Score: 11

5:08pm Wed 18 Jun 14

LisaCLuett says...

In my opinion the council have been extremely sly & underhanded in their actions regarding this site as it NOT Brownfield! They were hoping to sneak these plans through with barely a thought for Merley residents, with there being minimal information available & being very evasive when asked questions. Well Merley residents will not tolerate this!
In my opinion the council have been extremely sly & underhanded in their actions regarding this site as it NOT Brownfield! They were hoping to sneak these plans through with barely a thought for Merley residents, with there being minimal information available & being very evasive when asked questions. Well Merley residents will not tolerate this! LisaCLuett
  • Score: 10

5:48pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Concerned_Merley_Resident says...

Oh - and upon re-reading the article, another point isn't quite true:

A 550 signature petition and representation from the local MP led to Poole’s cabinet agreeing to defer a decision on proposals for two and three-bed homes, using half of the former youth centre site in Chichester Walk.

This proposal doesn't take up half the former youth centre site - it takes up all of it!

The former youth centre site was just a temporary portacabin - with a Tarmac hard standing next to it. (Take a look on google maps for how it used to look)

This development will remove all the hard standing which is used for preschool parking for up to 25 cars - forcing them to park on surrounding roads which are already at capacity.

It actually takes up between a third and half if the whole field!

More lies from BoP..........
Oh - and upon re-reading the article, another point isn't quite true: A 550 signature petition and representation from the local MP led to Poole’s cabinet agreeing to defer a decision on proposals for two and three-bed homes, using half of the former youth centre site in Chichester Walk. This proposal doesn't take up half the former youth centre site - it takes up all of it! The former youth centre site was just a temporary portacabin - with a Tarmac hard standing next to it. (Take a look on google maps for how it used to look) This development will remove all the hard standing which is used for preschool parking for up to 25 cars - forcing them to park on surrounding roads which are already at capacity. It actually takes up between a third and half if the whole field! More lies from BoP.......... Concerned_Merley_Resident
  • Score: 8

6:27pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Concerned_Merley_Resident says...

Me again!

Also - did you know that BoP has already met it's quota for affordable homes already? And that this land doesn't appear on any SHLAA list?

Again - please, tell the truth! Don't fall for the lies and misdirection from our Councillors!

And Councillor Rampton - don't forget that people of Poole voted for you - they can easily vote for someone else - do you want your legacy to be the one who was "determined" to remove a green urban recreation space that is used and loved by many - to replace it with hideous development that isn't in keeping with its surroundings (look at the plans and proposals)..........
....
Me again! Also - did you know that BoP has already met it's quota for affordable homes already? And that this land doesn't appear on any SHLAA list? Again - please, tell the truth! Don't fall for the lies and misdirection from our Councillors! And Councillor Rampton - don't forget that people of Poole voted for you - they can easily vote for someone else - do you want your legacy to be the one who was "determined" to remove a green urban recreation space that is used and loved by many - to replace it with hideous development that isn't in keeping with its surroundings (look at the plans and proposals).......... .... Concerned_Merley_Resident
  • Score: 12

10:36am Thu 19 Jun 14

FerndownSports says...

Cllr Rampton will be delighted to hear that an alternative location for affordable housing has been found - there is a lovely recreation ground just at the bottom of Winston Avenue which would be ideal for building these homes. I'm sure the local residents (coincidentally, including Cllr Rampton) will be more than happy to sacrifice their local green area for the greater good.
Cllr Rampton will be delighted to hear that an alternative location for affordable housing has been found - there is a lovely recreation ground just at the bottom of Winston Avenue which would be ideal for building these homes. I'm sure the local residents (coincidentally, including Cllr Rampton) will be more than happy to sacrifice their local green area for the greater good. FerndownSports
  • Score: 5

11:31am Thu 19 Jun 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

I have recently had an email bout with Cllr Rampton in regard to her keep calling the land at Chichester walk a Brownfield Site. It is not and never has been, the legal criteria for a Brownfield site is it must have had been previously developed with a permanent structure and this is clearly not the case, the only building that has ever been there was a temporary building with no foundations, that actually became so dilapidated it nearly got blown down so was removed. Cllr Rampton even sent me a definition of Brownfield site from a senior planning office in Poole Council at which I responded with the full legal definition. If Poole Council continue to call open space, brownfield and use that to illegally build on to meet their targets I am sure it will come back and seriously bite them in 2015.
I have recently had an email bout with Cllr Rampton in regard to her keep calling the land at Chichester walk a Brownfield Site. It is not and never has been, the legal criteria for a Brownfield site is it must have had been previously developed with a permanent structure and this is clearly not the case, the only building that has ever been there was a temporary building with no foundations, that actually became so dilapidated it nearly got blown down so was removed. Cllr Rampton even sent me a definition of Brownfield site from a senior planning office in Poole Council at which I responded with the full legal definition. If Poole Council continue to call open space, brownfield and use that to illegally build on to meet their targets I am sure it will come back and seriously bite them in 2015. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 5

1:44pm Thu 19 Jun 14

HeronField says...

Could Cllr Rampton please tell us the facts about the number of empty properties in the Borough and the number of 'second homes' in the Borough and what she and the Council are doing about the issues that they cause? I think local people would be surprised at the numbers and would be pressing their councillors and politicians for action to bring more of these properties into full time use.
The land at Merley has, since the 1960's, always been used by the local community for amenity, recreation and education. Throughout the Borough, most education land and buildings are used by their local community. That's what has and is happening with this land. Building houses on it, removes it from community use forever. Here is a golden opportunity for Poole Council to look at some of the other policies in their Core Strategy and Leisure Strategy which seek to 'improve and enhance existing open spaces, to promote the health and wellbeing of the population and to support local people to take greater control of their communities to improve the quality of life at local level'.

In addition, I keep hearing from councillors and Council officers that "x number of properties were 'lost' to the right to buy scheme". They are not 'lost'. They should be glad that people and families actually live in these 'lost' properties and if they didn't, they would presumably also be on the council waiting list.

Cllr Rampton might be 'quite determined' but I know that there are hundreds of people in Merley who are just as determined if not more so.
Could Cllr Rampton please tell us the facts about the number of empty properties in the Borough and the number of 'second homes' in the Borough and what she and the Council are doing about the issues that they cause? I think local people would be surprised at the numbers and would be pressing their councillors and politicians for action to bring more of these properties into full time use. The land at Merley has, since the 1960's, always been used by the local community for amenity, recreation and education. Throughout the Borough, most education land and buildings are used by their local community. That's what has and is happening with this land. Building houses on it, removes it from community use forever. Here is a golden opportunity for Poole Council to look at some of the other policies in their Core Strategy and Leisure Strategy which seek to 'improve and enhance existing open spaces, to promote the health and wellbeing of the population and to support local people to take greater control of their communities to improve the quality of life at local level'. In addition, I keep hearing from councillors and Council officers that "x number of properties were 'lost' to the right to buy scheme". They are not 'lost'. They should be glad that people and families actually live in these 'lost' properties and if they didn't, they would presumably also be on the council waiting list. Cllr Rampton might be 'quite determined' but I know that there are hundreds of people in Merley who are just as determined if not more so. HeronField
  • Score: 8

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree