After an excruciatingly long wait, the date is set. Final documents are in, and we are delighted to say that the Local Highway Authority agree with our assessment;
“it is recommended that the application is refused on highway safety grounds”
There have been many issues and underhand and dubious acts executed by Barratt Homes and their co-conspiritors in the process of this planning application. With hard work, residents have seen through them, and have given them a run for their money!
However now is the time we need everyone’s support to ensure that this application is refused once and for all. The hearing is due to take place at;
10:00 Wednesday 16th August
It is so contentious and Barratt Homes, so devious, that we ask everyone that might be affected by the development, to come down to the Council Offices on the day to show Councillors that there is overwhelming support to REFUSE this application.
We’ll be there, fighting on behalf of residents, so please, please, please spread the word, show your support and make time to attend the Planning Committee hearing on the 16th August. We’ll post more details as soon as we can.
In the mean time, to see Barratt Homes’ “misrepresentation”, “fake news” and “alternative facts” laid bare, at least on Highways matters, checkout the council planning site and take a peak at the superb and factually correct Highways Comments document posted on 31st May.
I have to admit to being surprised yet again by Barratt Homes. When we thought that Barratt Homes had stooped to the lowest levels of untrustworthiness and lies*, and had demonstrated an absolute lack of integrity, they’ve somehow managed to grind themselves even lower.
You may recall from previous blogs about Barratt and their co-conspiritors, they have tried filming the Meadow Lane junction previously and have ignored the ICO CCTV code of practice and Data Protection Act.
Probably, because they got caught last time, they thought they’d have another go, but this time they have broken every rule in the book!
To film traffic, which captures images of not only vehicles, but also adults and children walking on Meadow lane and Longton Road, they are supposed to place the cameras where they can been seen and to place LARGE notices around the area warning people of what they are doing, including their company details so that people can ask for their personal information to be excluded, given that this is an invasion of privacy. This is particularly important to residents at the moment due to a spate of burglaries in the area, to re-assure that filming is legal and is not being done by criminals surveying activity to plan their next break-in.
So… on the morning of Friday 17th Feb, a strange car was spotted next to the petrol station sporting a hidden camera! When approached by an eagle-eyed resident, the driver was less than helpful and claimed to not know who she was working for and had made every attempt to conceal her filming operations rather than to follow the law and ICO’s guidance. Sounds more like the behaviour of criminals than a (tongue in cheek) “reputable” house building company! The driver had actually tried to conceal the camera under coats placed on the dashboard of the car.
The driver did not want her photograph taken, citing this as an invasion of her privacy! I ask you, honestly… and she could not see the problem in covertly filming residents!
So here are a couple of images of what she was up to for you to form your own opinion ( identifiable images removed of course ).
So more bad behaviour from Barratt Homes is sadly only to be expected as the time is fast approaching for the Planning Committee hearing or expiry of their application.
Although Barratts are still wriggling around trying to conjure up more fantasy road layouts, and ‘alternative facts’, the actual facts are set to get their ill-founded plans rejected.
The vast majority of Barratt’s Transport proposals are based on mis-represented data and mis-representation of planning and transport guidance, so we are confident that Council Transport Planning Officers have multiple grounds based on the actual facts to refuse the application.
Back by popular demand,
look out for Santa on the green
at Chessington Crescent
SUNDAY 18TH DECEMBER 2016
11 am – 1 pm
* Meet Santa *
* Gift for every child and a bag of ‘Magic Meadow’ reindeer food *
* Photo opportunity with Santa (bring your own camera)*
* Minimum donation of £3 per child *
There is also a raffle and fantastic prizes
Everyone’s welcome and we look forward to seeing you there…. and….. don’t forget……all funds raised support the on-going fight against Barratt Homes, with anything left going straight to Donna Louise.
There hasn’t really been anything to update residents about recently as months have come and gone and we’re still awaiting a hearing date from Council Planning Officers.
However, Barratt Homes in their wisdom have sent a few more nice graphics along with more astonishing misrepresentations to the council and these can be seen on the council planning website. What is quite so astonishing is that despite Barratt Homes knowing the facts, like 1 kilometre is ahem, 1 kilometre and that residents don’t generally use air transport to make line of sight journeys to and from local amenities, they still persist in writing up glossy materials that bend the truth into what can only be described as knowing-misrepresentation.
In their latest documents, they have also had to reduce the number of houses again, this time down to 227. Also interesting is what is missing from their documents when compared to their earlier attempts to deceive readers. So it seems that there is a point even they appear too embarrassed to go beyond.
None of the latest documents change the key points a Planning decision will be made on, but they do make entertaining reading, particularly if you actually compare what they say and how they make calculations. Just in way of a teaser, did you know that;
Barratt do a like for like housing density comparison with the south of Chessington Crescent. They say that approximately 6.25 hectares of the meadow is developable land for new housing and that the average density south of Chessington is 42 per hectare ( this may or may not be true, but I doubt it ). Anyway they go on to say that the average new house density on the meadow will be 20 per hectare.
BUT HANG ON A MINUTE! Comparing the development areas directly and assuming that Barratt’s figure of 6.25 hectares is correct then my calculator shows that 227 houses divided by 6.25 hectares is an average of 36 houses per hectare, not 20! They really do need to brush up on their maths!
Bullocks to Barratts
Residents have been delighted to see new born bullocks in the meadow, which we take as a good omen and a message chiming with our own!
Come along to see what Barratt Homes newest tricks are and their latest attempt at the planning application.
There are also some fab easter raffle prizes donated by individuals and local businesses like this super hamper donated by TRENTHAM BATHROOMS… Thanks!!!
See you there BETWEEN 11-2
On THE GREEN (at Chessington Crescent)
Easter Bonnet Parade
Find the hidden animals
Raffle and Prizes
All funds raised are used to cover the costs of the fight against Barratt Homes. Anything left after they are defeated will be donated to Donna Louise Trust.
So… the time has come and Barratt Homes have submitted an amended batch of application documents who’s purpose should be to openly and honestly address the issues in their application.
We should give them credit for the new site layout and reduction in number of houses as it’s now much better than the previous versions, and Longton Road is no longer as wide as the M6 in their transport assessment. However at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I’m afraid, as appears to be their propensity ( evidenced by Barratt’s own documents ), they haven’t addressed the indisputable, undeniable factual problems with their application and the new documents even introduce more ‘Ahmmm’ errors!
But given that largely the same old issues remain with the application and in particular the junction of Longton Road failing even without the development, we still expect Planning Officers to recommend refusal of the application.
To make sure we don’t miss anything, on behalf of residents we are again consulting experts on various aspects of the application.
We’re now looking forward to seeing a refusal at the Planning Meeting and the final rejection of this unwanted, unneeded development at the inevitable appeal!