Telford & Wrekin Council Watch
| Analog Clock2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Paypal Donate |
|---|
| Thankyou ALL for your valued support. |
| j7TitleScroller |
|---|
| Simple Page Options | |
|---|---|
|
| Donations |
|---|
|
|
| Secure Login Form |
|---|
| Personal Messages |
|---|
|
You are not logged in. |
| Surveys List |
|---|
| Whos Online |
|---|
| No Users Online |
| Tab News Module |
|---|
|
Latest News
The Dawley Sign and a TAWPA councillors Comments
The Dawley Sign and a TAWPA Councillors Comments
The Ho...Readmore
|
Telford Housing Report Update
|
| English Partnerships and Stirchley land |
|
|
|
| Written by John Evans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Saturday, 11 October 2008 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
English Partnerships and stirchley Land I received this useful letter today from David Wright.M.P.He makes some positive comments and has shown genuine interest.
Dear John,
I have now received a reply from English Partnerships about the land off Stirchley Avenue......It would appear that the site is included for development in the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan.There is no timescale for this development process and the site will be allocated as grazing land in the medium term.The remaining area is designated as open space and will remain as such.
I have to say that with the housing market as it is,it seems unlikely that this site will be used for development in the near future. It may be that when the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan is next reviewed,it should be reconsidered for an open space designation.
DavidWright.M.P.
Now to the letter sent by E.P.
Dear Mr Wright,
I can confirm that the site has been recently fenced is owned by E.P. and lies within the wider area which is now referred to locally as "Randlay Valley".It was created by the former Telford Development Corporation as part of the overall masterplan for the area and is committed for development within the current plan.
The site represents only a small proportion of the overall area,the majority having previously been subject to a Community Related Asset transfer as open space and amenity land to the Local Authority when T.D.C. was wound up in Sept 1991.
E.P. has continued to manage its residual land in Randlay but there has been no physical boundary separating it from the adjoining owned Open Space and Wildlife area. I enclose a plan................
Whilst we have no timescales for development at Randlay it is E.P policy wherever possible,to secure and erect signage on areas mot classified as "Open Space".and particularly where there are known problems with motorcycle nuisance and other trespass issues as there are at Randlay. E.P.considers its Health and Safety responsibilities very seriously in sites such as this and further sites are likely to be secured in due course.
Further more the area you refer to has been identified as being suitable for pony grazing.The fencing has been upgraded for this purpose.However,prior to letting the field,and in accordance with good estate management we are proposing a programme of woodland management including tree thinning so it is essential that the public are excluded on safety grounds during these works. We are intending to erect signs in advance of the work to notify residents of the proposals.
As I have already mentioned the fenced off area represents a small proportion of Randlay Valley,the surrounding area,which has been designated as "Open Space"by T.D.C,and now in Council ownership offers ample opportunities for walking dogs and other suitable leisure activities, by means of the extensive of green spaces and pathways. The new fencing does not interfere with any of the formal pathways within the wider Open Space .
Nick Ashcroft,Assistant Land Manager. 01952 237723
I will now dissect this ludicrous and convoluted barricade of bureaucratic dissembling paragraph by paragraph.
Para 1 is self evident
Para 2 . The area is not particularly small in relation to the overall area. Also, the nature of the remaining area needs examination.See below.
Para 3 E.P has in fact done little to maintain the area since taking responsibility.It has not been interested in physical boundaries until now. It is necessary to ask why this has become so essential.Reasons are given but I will challenge them. At this point I suggest that EP's need may be to deny free access as from 1991 when it presumably took over from T.D.C. This may be in order to prevent the argument of free access for twenty years having any effect.
Para 4. It is admitted that there is no timescale for development but that there is a policy of signage ,particularly where there has been nuisance.This is grossly exaggerated and in fact it has been local people who have kept an eye on any unacceptable use. The E.P. has not been particularly concerned about this but have placed specific notices restricting certain activities as a result of public co-operation.The more restrictive signage and fencing is to do with administrative convenience.
The para ends with quite obvious subterfuge about Health and Safety. Given this has not concerned the agency until now one is compelled to ask if this is just another ploy.Something to do with award gathering,as is now common in local government and quango's. Or is it perhaps partly the above and the tactical administrative convenience combined?.
Para 5. Now the story changes to accommodate another diversion. This is the pony grazing idea which ,one must presume ,fits administrative convenience as well as allowing the E.P. to pimp off the land as a form of income with no concern about the leisure needs of the public in their own parish,or those in adjoining parishes.Various people have also been told that it is to fence out gypsies,prevent biking,and even to prevent dogs falling down a manhole. The latter claim being about a manhole somewhere on the road to the Nedge.
The smug inclusion of "good estate management" is a typical piece of market speech.Again ,why is it suddenly applicable?.Why was the tree thinning and other environmental improvements not done over the period since 1991?.
Finally there is the piece about excluding the public on safety grounds. This could be quite easily arranged as each part of the woodland is worked on. As it is people will be passing the worked areas on the foot paths so as to go to work ,or proceed to where they will be allowed to take their leisure some distance away. Once more,the smokescreen of evasion can be penetrated and seen to be callous nonsense.
Para 6.I said above that this area is not a small area within the Valley. The E.P. recognises that the wider area includes wildlife.Much of it is wetland and is difficult to penetrate.Incidentally any future development will threaten the flora and fauna.
In the meantime it is ridiculous to suggest that the community,those nearest to the Nedge in particular, should seek their leisure,walk the dogs ,etc, by going some distance to Randlay Valley. This will be inconvenient and even potentially dangerous in parts of the area. Older people,disabled persons,women on their own, and families after a long day at work,will be substantially deprived of an immediate outlet.
What for ,one asks?.So that this agency can exclude the rate payer and taxpayer(paying for E.P.by the way) and ,dog in the manger like ,prevent the democratic use of land that may never be developed. It is essential that the parish council ,the borough council,and above all the general public,unite to prevent this. The type of selfish society that has formed over the last thirty or so years is cracking as a result of moral failure built into the social and economic system. A system which has thrown up unaccountable monstrosities like English Partnerships. It is time to stop them.John.D.Evans
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20
3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."Telford Council Watch                |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Last Updated ( Saturday, 11 October 2008 ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|