Urgent – Next Phase (Development)
Created by Cllr Julian PowellIt looks like the developers want to build the next phase of Kingsway at greater housing density than before… The time to influence this decision is now!
The Planning Application will go through unless more residents complain about it to the City Council. Any complaint must be in writing to count.
It looks like they have increased the number of dwellings without increasing the public open space or parking. But it is really hard to tell, as all the plans can only be seen on a computer; like trying to see the stars through a letter box.
I thought they had said they were not going to build yet more shared parking courts because of the trouble that happens in them. Most of the parking is in parking courts and there are not enough spaces.
They have also included more housing as Social Housing for rent. The original outline design of the urban village was for 30% of the houses to be social housing (both rented and shared ownership), in small blocks of up to 10 units distributed through the estates. When house prices crashed, the builders sold on a couple of cul de sacs “lock stock and barrel” to various Housing Associations. So now instead of just Gloucestershire Housing Association we also have Bromford and Oxstalls – with the Guinness Trust in there somewhere (I understand, but am not sure of the details). So instead of 30% Social Housing, we currently have about 50%. That includes housing for rent and housing for shared purchase. Most tenants are good people, but – like Private Housing – some are not; however, with more than 30% Social Housing the “character” of the development will change away from a “private residential area”.
They should not plan for more “Affordable Housing” until the imbalance is corrected.
The plans were submitted to the Parish Council Planning Committee for comment on Wednesday 11 March. It looks like a decision is to be made by Gloucester City Council on 7 April 2009. If you are concerned you need to get your objections in to the City Council now, after the cut off date it will be too late.
The best way to influence the decision will be to see the plans, write to the Council, and the local Councillors and Councillors on the Planning Committee, and go and see them. And turn up at the City Council Planning meeting and speak against the proposals.
There is also an application in for the commercial centre, which shows a very poor quality arrangement of shops around small car parks for small shops, of very low quality design – not what they promised at outline design at all – a high quality space with a decent square or central area, and a decent sized shop. They have conveniently forgotten about the Community Centre and Health Centre and Religious Worship Building to be in the central area.
And there is an application for the surface water balancing pond, which has sides that are too steep to be safe for children to escape from, and probably does not store enough water to prevent flooding. It has to be planned as though kids will get in there, just fencing it off will not do.
This entry was posted
on Friday, March 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
and is filed under Local News.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Hi Julian,
A very interesting article, thank you.
You’ll note that I removed one paragraph from the article so as to allow me to check the information given; I know that some of it was innaccurate, and I want to check the rest (before re-including) so as to avoid offending residents and spreading misinformation.
One other thing in here which I’m not certain of is the comment about “the Community Centre and Health Centre and Religious Worship Building”… I’m not 100% certain but I seem to remember hearing that those facilities were being built by a seperate entity to the “general shopping centre facilities” and – as such – were always intended to be added seperately (as I say I’m not 100% certain and – sadly – it’s too late to get hold of anybody to check my information, but I think you’ll find that the consortium are responsible for the shops and the QUVL for those other buildings, or something along those lines)!
March 20th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The stuff about 50% Social Housing at present was given in open session at the Parish Council in January / February, and (I think) comes from the County Council MAIDeN data. So it would have been available at the County and City Council for the month previous. The purchase of cul de sacs was given in open council by the Police – but I don’t know which roads, and should be in the monitoring report QUVL has to disclose to the City Planners. I don’t bother keeping any of this data, as I have far to much paper to cope with. From the School Governors I am aware there is some inflammatory information about specific relocations to Kingsway, that might be best not commented on, but the general problem needs to be raised as there is now no single organisation controlling the mix on the development. If you want to reword the tone, that would be OK.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Semantics aside, Julian is right, get writing. One of the biggest problems with this estate is the lack of parking especially considering this is a commuting village. If we want to make sure the job is done right, then we need to voice our concerns.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:34 am
Hi Baz,
I agree, parking is a serious issue (as is the balancing pond, and – indeed – the recent influx of “altered” Planning Applications)!
Hi Julian,
OK, I accept what you say (I’ve been waiting for confirmation of those figures from several sources, for some time now)
I have reinstated your comments (with some – very small – edits), but I will add the following:
The current level of Affordable Housing does not necessarily mean that “agreed levels” have increased. When new houses are available (to private buyers and HA’s) and the housing market is in decline, the HA’s will – if anything – allocate their properties faster than usual, whereas private sales will (obviously) slow down. What I’d like to know is whether the figure of 50% takes into account the unsold “private buyer” houses and – if not – what will the figure be once they are sold (assuming the allocation levels remain the same)?
I am also aware that planning applications have been made to increase the “Affordable Housing” quota’s, (which – to be fair – we all anticipated as soon as the housing market went into decline). That doesn’t make much difference in principle of course, but it didn’t ought to suprise anybody.
The fact that multiple HA’s are involved is not recent news; there were multiple HA’s involved more than 2 years ago.
The Guinness Trust are involved because the GHA are set to join the Guinness Partnership on April 1st of this year (this has been in negotiation since August 2008).
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
Julian/Clive
Do either of you know what the application number is, so I can review it? The Council website isn’t exactly easy to search!
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Having looked at the plans for the shops and stuff, I think the proposals look ok; 15 units of varying sizes, with a fair amount of parking which makes a change. The public House and stuff was explained to myself and Clive as coming along separately. The planning application itself does state quite clearly that it is only part of the local centre!
Unfotunately I think Julian is scaremongering slightly with this as he is with talk of how much Social Housing there is. Not only do I find his comments inflammatory but I think its disgusting from a local Council representative who is supposed to represent everybody INCLUDING social housing tenants. If I was a tenant, I would feel severely misrepresented!
For those interested, The local centre application number is:09/00053/REM
I will look at the main applications in a bit, children running riot!
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
The Balancing pond application, (app. no. 09/00114/REM) it is a retrospective application and as such was completed on 17/10/08, so all the comments about it not having the right sides for people to climb out, well there have been no complaints about the actual pond itself, is it actually wrong? I will have to have a walk and have a look. As it is a retrospecive application, I would think there is only remedial work that can really be done to it and having met Andy, I would think he would be more than willing to hear the concerns and take action if required.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
On the assumption that we are looking at application 08/01552/REM then Julian’s Social housing figures are inaccurate. The total number of houses is 82. 60 of these are for open market and 20 are for social housing. Its been a while since I was at school, but I’m pretty sure 20 is not 50% of 82.
However, there does not seem to be as much parking as there could be. But there is more than what is currently in the village.
Julian does raise a good point, we do need to keep an eye on these applications and whilst the website isn’t the easiest to look at, most of the Kingsway applications can be found to have an ending of /REM and thus makes it easier to search. And you can comment online.
My overall view is that the proposals are no worse than was already applied for, and nowhere near as bad as made out in the original post, however, please do look and see for yourself, I could be looking at the wrong application (hence why I have cited my references). Or it could just be election time soon…..
March 24th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I have carefully considered application 08/01552/REM by comparison with the original application 06/01155/REM. The “Schedule Of Accommodation” on the new application does not include all housing so distorts the overall numbers. At first glance the numbers seem OK. However, if you sit down with the old and new plans and count the actual houses you will see that on the Persimmon B1 site originally 27 houses and 9 apartments (25%) were “social” but under the new proposals this increases to 47 houses and 9 apartments (40%). Low cost housing remains at 7 houses.
This is a significant increase and despite postings protesting prejudice etc we have to acknowledge there are problems – stone throwing at passing cars, property damage, abusive language – from a minority of the nearby social housing children. No, I’m not mistaken as I have challenged these children and walked them, or watched them, go back to their homes. Neighbours report the same and worse incidents. Yes, this is reported to the Housing Association (who have taken action) but the end result is some, prejudiced by experience, private householders have no desire for any increase in the social housing.
Please submit any objections, quoting the planning reference, to Gloucester City Council, Development Control, 4th Flr, Herbert Warehouse, The Docks, Gloucester, GL1 2EQ.
I understand the deadline for objections is 2 April 2009.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I also believe you can submit comments online too, so if you don’t want to waste a stamp.
The only other comment I would make is that, the rise in Social Housing numbers (taking Blanky42′s counting) will lead to the estate being completed sooner and hitting the targets for things like the Local Centre etc to be built. If we go down the road of objecting on these grounds then the estate will stay as it is until the economy recovers, so you’re looking at least until 2010/11ish… That may not be a problem, I’m just highlighting it.
The other thing is that a lot of the houses are being bought and then let out to private tenants. Whilst this is not a bad thing either, at least with Social Housing, it is easy to complain to a Housing Association (as Blanky42 has pointed out) and you get action, you might not get such quick action of a private landlord.
As Blanky42 says, any issues are being caused by a minority and we should ensure this minority is highlighted to the relevent people, however the Majority are fine and this is the important thing.
I have to say, I live on Thatcham Ave and I find it great, very little noise or problems like that. I have good neighbours and am getting to know others on the estate too. My wife and I are even encouraging our friends to move here.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I recently received notification that planning application 08/01552/REM is due to be considered on 7 July at 6pm, is anyone going along to speak?
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Hank,
Are you going?
I may also make an appearance and voice my own concerns, do you have details of the time of the review?
regards
HM
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Hi HM
I wont be able to go.
All I know is that the meeting starts at 6pm and is in committee room 1.
I had an email giving me these details as I objected to the application.
H