From: Pat Ruaune
To: cllr.paul.moss@stockport.gov.uk
VERY IMPORTANT PLEASE READ
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 9:53 AM
Subject: Agenda item 4 (a) Local Community Issues
Good Morning Cllr. Moss, Chair of Heatons and
Reddish Area Committee.
We, the campaigners for Save the Vale 2013
request that the chair of the Heatons and Reddish Area Committee announce that
we seek a Councillors’ call for Action on the issue of
having had our representatives misled over the intention of the Executive
Committee and the Service Director Regeneration Communities and Environment
Directorate.
We have evidence that the intention to use a
specific area of Open Space was deliberately hidden from the Members of
Stockport Council, regardless of their political groups.
We are seriously concerned that, having been
duped, the representatives of Stockport’s electorate have not yet begun any
action on this issue. As you know, our case with the Ombudsman against the
council of maladministration is directed at the council Executive and the
officers who have facilitated the subterfuge.
There is too much evidence to provide at this
committee but some key documents are cited here:
Access and signage to Reddish Vale Country Park, which provides a key asset in greenspace and recreational terms to Brinnington, would benefit from substantial improvement.
3.3 Recognising that the estate is constrained in land use terms, the regeneration plan identifies future growth opportunities to provide new housing and amenities on the periphery of the estate in the north, recognising relevant policy implications regarding the Green Belt. This is a key issue and will need to be given full consideration during the drawing up of Local Development Framewo rk Allocations Development Plan Document.
These paragraphs appear on page 80 of Report to Executive Committee 14th March 2011. There is no ambivalence about the importance of improving the access to Country Park in the first statement. However the access did not need improving. There is a bus stop immediately in front of one of the three entrance points that are regularly used. The only thinng lacking is a Welcome notice board and, in 2011, a flagpole bearing a Green Flag. Then there would have been no ignorance on the part of councillors for the area as to where the CP began and Brinnington township boundary ended.
In the second statement, however, this becomes “Green Belt on the periphery of the estate.” No one mentioned that these two statements referring to the same peice of land actually contradict each other and the entire document was approved by the Executive.
At the Full Council meeting on 17th March 2011 it was resolved that all undetermined development applications validated prior to the Core Strategy coming into force for the development management decision making process on 1st April 2011, will be considered against policies set out in the UDP Review.
The following is taken from the Core Strategy document which was decided 14th March 2011. You may notice that 3.290 was carefully worded after the 2009 Brinnington Regeneration Masterplan was scritinised and passed. In 3.291 affordable/social housing is linked despite having a political difference, the field at Blackberry Lane is repeatedly referred to as “underused”
3.290 In general terms development that does not safeguard the permanence and integrity of areas of Strategic and Local Open Space will not be allowed. There may, however, be situations in which other factors determine that the need to continue to protect existing assets are outweighed by the interests of achieving sustainable communities, in particular with regards to delivering mixed communities, meeting wider leisure needs, improving participation in the use of recreation facilities and improving parks. In such situations the objective of achieving sustainable communities may be best served by the development of limited areas of open space. Such development must be designed to meet a high standard of sustainability and pay high regard to the local environment.3.291 In addition there may be circumstances where satisfying overriding community needs such as affordable/social housing may justify loss of open space. The Council’s Sport, Recreation and Open Space Study audits the current level of supply againstrelevant assessments of demand. Also relevant is the nationally recognised Fields in Trust “6 Acre” standard which consultation confirms is an appropriate minimum standard to be applied to the borough. Such circumstances will only be considered acceptable where the study identifies a relative higher provision of recreational open space within an Area Committee area compared to other Area Committee areas in the borough. Any development resulting in a loss of open space within an area of relative high-levels of provision will be expected to off-set that loss by making improvements to existing open space or providing (at least) equivalent new open space in a Committee area of relative low provision so as to help not exacerbate the under-supply situation that exists across the borough as a whole.
The document attached is still applicable and needs to be looked at carefully.
On the one hand the “committee area” is used to reduce the number of councillors consulted on our main issue and on the other hand it can be construed that RVCP is, under this policy, being regarded as “provision of recreational open space” within the “Area committee area” of Brinnington.
They are appropriating, without consent, land that falls outside the Township boundary. The electoral boundary is not an issue except to note that the electoral boundary,( which is subject to fluctuation, )will be filled with privately owned houses.
It seems obvious that the Executive Committee were fully aware of all of these inconsistencies and regard the electorate and their representatives as unable to decipher the documentation.
I am not prepared to take these, and many of the insults to my intelligence that followed lying down. The procedure from the beginning has not been open and transparent. We call upon all councillors to take action on this now.
It is another blow to democracy and it is on our patch. These are only a few of the damning documents in our files.
I do not regard Legal Services as serving the electorate. I do not regard Democratic services as serving the electorate. We only have you.
