|Amber Valley SOS | sitemap | log in
|This is a free Spanglefish 1 website.
This site is included in the New Strategic Plan
The Heanor site
for 500 houses over both plots
This site has been drastically reduced from originally wanting to build 4,000 houses the greenbelt land has been spared
Newlands would consist of 284 houses
JOIN us on facebook or twitter
EXTENSION(S) TO THE SOUTH EAST OF HEANOR - GH2
• The site is relatively close to Heanor town centre
• There are no formal environmental, landscape or historical
• This would involve development within the Green Belt
• No existing distinct boundaries exist that could act as a
defensible barrier against any further encroachment into
Speeches made on the 18th January 2012, at the AVBC Full Council Meeting
These comments are made in relation to GH2 Hardy Barn/Breach Road - Heanor, proposed strategic housing site consultation period and summary reports.
Representatives from HGBAG – Heanor Green Belt Action Group.
With respect to the “Options for Housing Growth summary of responses document.”
Of the 1179 representations, I am of the understanding that GH2 Hardy Barn was represented by 490 objections and was the largest single issue within the consultation period. Although the number of objections far exceeds the support for GH2, (I conservatively estimate in excess of 95%), I cannot quote a precise value since the Council have been unable or unwilling to provide all the necessary figures.
Why was this not noted in the update on the Core Strategy and proposed next steps?
Why is this not noted under the towns section of Heanor in Appendix 1?
Issues that generated the most public response have not been highlighted.
There is no objective analysis of the representation of numbers.
Surely this is critical for a true analysis.
A response of 490 opinions is a significant reaction from the public that should be reflected in the report and reading through it: it appears that Amber Valley have tried to water-down the public’s response and views of the ‘Core Strategy; and that thepublic’s opinion has been repeatedly ignored.
Therefore to produce a true Core Strategy, does Amber Valley intend listening to its electorate and report in a true and honest manner in the future, something it has clearly not donein relation to this consultation?And I therefore call upon the council to withdraw with immediate effect GH2 hardy barn as a proposed strategic site.
When referring to the Summary Report (Appendix 1 A) produced as a result of the alleged public consultation ending October 2011. Options for Housing Growth…
I put it to the council that the summary report is far too subjective and biased.
In that it is led in many cases and repeatedly by: - “And I quote from the report”
“One comment states”…. or “Another respondent says”.. or “‘A small number state…”’
How can a housing strategy of the borough in so many instances be led by and set by ‘one comment’ when no mention is made 490 objectors to the inclusion of Heanor sub area GH2.
This seriously compromises the validity of this report !!!!!
The Localisation Bill is surely about listening to the local community and then acting in their best interest.
Not relevant? Then why bother to consulting the local community, if you are not going to listen them.
In my personal opinion this report is selective, ineffective, biased, divisive and weak in that it appears to have a hidden agenda and is not a ‘fair’ evaluation. It does not reflect the true public view from the public consultation.
A comprehensive and objective report is required to clearly report the feelings of all consul tees and the local community.
So that the elected members can see a fair profile of the issues that are important to their electorate and in this case the removal GH2 Hardy Barn from the core strategy proposal.
3. Leonie George
I wish to lodge my OBJECTION to The Potential Strategic site located at GH2 Hardy Barn/Langley
Within your officers Summary Report where there is no mention of objections and representations received from Heanor, Loscoe Town Council and Shipley Parish Council KEY CONSULTEES- but a bias has been placed on one or two pecuniary led comments.
I QUOTE: Shipley Parish Council reiterates its strong support towards preservation of all greenfield and greenbelt sites …………. there are many opportunities for housing growth on existing brownfield and sites within the area (THEY EVEN IDENTIFY THEM FOR YOU).
This is unrepresented in your document drafted by you officers! Not once is there any mention that the proposed site is within the GreenBelt but AGAIN ONE OF THE KEY CONSULTEES points out to you, that ‘I quote FROM Heanor Loscoe Town Council representation’... ‘Comprehensive development of this site would involve land in the Green Belt, and it cannot be in the interest of any ‘community’ to develop within the Green Belt. The council should always start with the premise of defending GreenBelt, Green Field sites’. Surely this was worth a mention in this strategic document?? This is a pertinent statement of high value. You should be exhausting ALL Brownfield and previously identified sites as well as auditing industrial land before redrawing GreenBelt boundaries, which should be preserved at all costs.
I need to ask the question ‘Why is this not reported in the Heanor Area Section page 13? ‘I can tell you why’ it’s because you don’t want it mentioned and have purposely been selective in your reporting!!!
The current conservative initiative is to listen to your community, why are you not doing this? 490 members of the Heanor community state STRONGLY that you should withdraw GH2 Hardy Barn Green Belt proposal from the Core Strategy Document.
One of the smallest reports has been dedicated to Heanor, which was the largest single issue. In reading the representations and the summary report key information is missing and specifically that of the views of the 490 electorate.
You state in your report…..’ numerous comments have stated that Heanor is a sustainable location for new development …………..and ‘One respondent is in support of.....’ these comments need to be quantified and qualified ‘does the respondent have any benefit to gain from this proposal? We need to know, you need to be seen to be open and transparent. This is reflected in the new Localism Bill as implemented by the Coalition Government as the consequence of passing a partial flawed report will be a mistrust of the council which could translate itself into voting patterns at next election.
You can see we will unite and we will keep turning up in greater and greater force the people of Amber Valley will keep shouting until you recognise that we have a voice and until you listen to us!
I propose that the elected members reject, in full, Appenidix 1 Options for Housing Growth Summary of Responses and that it is rewritten to include objective, statistical and qualified data to provide a fair reflection of public consultation.
With respect to ‘Options for Housing Growth summary of responses in relation to GH2 Hardy Barn, Langley.
We feel that there is misrepresentation within this devisive document and are questioning if there is a hidden agenda within Amber Valley Borough Council, we would like to ask who is driving this report, as it is obvious from your summary that 490 responsdents aren’t. Do we need to ask if Derbyshire County Council is influencing the core strategy document and in particular GH2 and also is there gain to be made by Amber Valley in a poorly constructed critical strategic document and are considering if there is a case for the local government ombudsman to investigate the integrity of the document we have before us? We call upon the members here to withdraw GH2 Hardy Barn/Langley located at the East of Heanor.