The speculator's response

Daniel Holmes left the following comment on the previous post:

"Just wanted to let you know that this community asset that you keep talking of is actually private property.
And if you actually looked at the detailed plans on the planning website
It clearly shows provisions for the tramway and that the land has had all relevant surveys done and is not deemed as being at risk of flooding. I"

He then deleted it, but I think it deserves a response anyway. 

Just because something is privately owned does not mean it is not a community asset.  There are any number of historic buildings, open spaces and other resources which make our world a better place and add to the enjoyment of the area by all of us even though they are in private ownership.  These are community assets.

Hempshill Hall is perhaps an appropriate example of a rather less selfish attitude than yours from the owners who have invested substantial amounts of time, money and effort to restore the derelict building to a state where we can all enjoy viewing it across the fields and from the adjacent paths, and it is just this community asset which you seem so keen to destroy for short term profit.

As regards the remainder of your comment, I think that those of us who actually live in the area would take issue with the flooding risk, having witnessed some rather spectacular flooding over the past few months.

Deadline extended

Good News!

The deadline for submission of comments on the revised planning application for the desecration of Hempshill Fields has been extended to 25th February.  Actually I may have misread the notice first time around as the deadline of 25th applies to neighbours only. 

Whatever, this gives us another couple of weeks to get those objections registered...again.

Whilst they may have tinkered around with the number of houses and width of the tramway, the revised application does nothing to address the key point which is that Hempshill Fields is a valuable community asset and no amount of tweaking will save the fields for posterity.

If they do eventually build all over the fields it will be interesting to see what they tell prospective purchasers about the likelihood of a tramway being built right past their front door, or of the delightful lake frontage every time it rains heavily.  And in case you were wondering, if they build sewers to serve the new homes (which I fear they will have to), when it floods it will not just be rainwater which fills the streets!

Not another application!

I don't believe it (as someone once said)!  Another revised application with a slightly reduced number of homes proposed and some utterly pointless token gestures such as "preserving the historic context of the barns" by leaving out a single house in the new development.  Well you would probably be able to see the back of the barns, but it hardly constitutes "preserving" anything, least of all any historic context. 

When will the developers realise that it is not about horse trading over widening the tramway, leaving out a plot here or there or tarting up the play areas...we are objecting to the destruction of a beautiful green open space forever.

Anyone with an ounce of sensitivity to the community who saw the ecstatic expressions on the faces of dozens of children (and adults) enjoying the recent snow would realise that selling all this for a quick buck on land speculation is a pretty poor swap.

Unfortunately, although this time it is a revision so previous objectors should have been notified, the deadline for comments is tomorrow; try and get your objections in if you can.

Link to the application is here.