(page
1
2)
| |
|
Marcus Pickering |
27/11/2013 22:24 |
We've been round this circle already but I'll restate the position for the benefit of others reading.
LFCA cannot be impartial on every issue otherwise we will never be able to take any action. It is clear that the overwhelming majority want this access open and so this is what we have pursued.
Once again, it was a petition - by its nature one-sided - and not a referendum. I was at the Council meeting to present a petition so I did not set out to make arguments for and against. I did, however, outline what I understand to be the opposing arguments when asked a question to this effect by one of the councillors.
There is nothing disingenuous about giving feedback after the event. I stated in public at the AGM that I would be presenting at the meeting and this is minuted. The date wasn't given, but if this was important to you you could have asked for it. In any case, it would have been pointless anyone else being there - I had 3 minutes to present the petition and there was no provision for any other member of the public to speak at the meeting.
The minutes of the cabinet meeting will be published on the CCC website in due course.
|
| |
|
Jaime Dickinson |
28/11/2013 01:19 |
you say the overwhelming majority want this access open but out of circa 1000 + homes only 350 signatures obtained... not sure that's is majority or over whelming. Seems to be a lot of weight out on this by the lfca? and indeed you need to be more transparent.
|
| |
|
Colfe |
28/11/2013 07:47 |
Thanks Marcus. I suppose the point for restating the argument, is that rather than moving the process forward to take all points of view on board, there seems to be an intention by the LFCA to commit to a strategy that based on absolute figures does not have the overwhelming majority behind. Lets deal in facts. Of c.1200 dwellings, less than 25% responded positively (based on 1 headcount per household, which is surely being generous to the petition response % i quoted.) Hear say, and un recorded comments can not simply be added to the overall total for the purposes of defining a majority. I understand the differences of a petition vs referendum, though if you wish to cite % turnouts at local elections as an indicator of success of petition numbers (or why apathy means numbers weren't higher), then we must compare apples with apples. At elections voters have a choice more akin to a referendum, for example, a yes or no vote with regards Scottish independence. This petition afforded no such choice and the protracted period in order to achieve numbers is I am afraid a somewhat troubling factor.
I concur that the LFCA must strike a position on topics and themes or nothing will get done (dealing with vandalism of play areas etc) though on issues such as this that evidently have such a meaningful impact, it feels slightly at odds with the spirit of the covenant that such a forceful line has been taken.
Finally, for the purposes of data protection, I would appreciate reference to attendance to a meeting of any member on these forums to be kept confidential, unless the member chooses in the thread to make the point.
|
| |
|
Marcus Pickering |
28/11/2013 09:31 |
re your last point: apologies for this, I have removed the reference.
|
| |
|
Ben Pitt |
28/11/2013 11:22 |
I'm sure the council receives plenty of petitions and is able to evaluate this one on its own merits.
|
| |
|
Philip Gibbs |
28/11/2013 15:07 |
I am frankly disappointed to see LFCA being accused of formulating a policy and foisting it upon the residents. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the current situation, it is necessary for this issue to be resolved once and for all. Five LONG years I have been hearing the same arguments, and at the end of the day, it is personal choice which decides. I have been told that all prospective purchasers on this phase of the development (taking Love's Farm East and Winteringham Park as further phases) have been made aware of the access restriction. I would be prepared to wager that if you purchased a property on the road network north of the Stone Hill junction, you were not told that you were one of approximately eight hundred dwellings in one cul-de-sac ie: with ONE access and exit. There you have it in one sentence : The argument:
Do you open up what is now a closed cul-de-sac and make a through route of the road(Hogsden Leys)for everybody south of the rising bollards, and leave the individual culs-de-sac
to discharge in either direction. Or do you leave it as it is now (a quiet, but enormous cul-de-sac), where nobody from the south of the site comes north except by choice or error and everybody in this area turns south to get off the site.
Seems to me that the more serious discussion point should be the safe exiting from the site for the large number of residents who will be facing a single lane exit and entrance once the cars start parking in Upper High Ground.
(NB Hogsden Leys now)
I know that the planning staff at County, wanted to slow the through traffic by "design".They have succeeded not only in slowing it but making it stationary as well!
Lastly, I have personally had 5 years of discussion about the bridge. I think LFCA has devoted enough time and energy on it, so as to represent the views of an unbiased Association. What the individual members of the committee think is not of any interest. Do come and tell us how your neighbours feel about - anything!
|
| |
|
Colfe |
28/11/2013 16:41 |
I wonder, is Loves Farm really a cul-de-sac? Access in varying forms is available through Dramsell rise, Belland Hill, Loves Way, which would suggest it is not. The point is, when the LFCA suggests representation is based on a majority, which is in no way quantifiable, then one is obligated to question this and attempt to cut through the noise and establish facts.
|
| |
|
Sharon Nicholson |
04/12/2013 00:22 |
Oh dear. I've been away and missed a lot haven't I?
Firstly I gather that Marcus doesn't mean that 300 plus homes are out of the entire site...more probable to mean from the turning(can't remember the name)that leads PST the new redrow site and up.and that's only to those people who have bothered to join the website...
As for is it a cul de cup...yes it is...from the traffic narrowing on hogsden leys, lannesbury crescent, paddocks, Woodridge, bargroves etc....yes it IS a cup de sac..there is only one way to enter and exit...or have I missed a turning I didn't know existed...in fact this actual cuk de sac continues all the way round to Oliver way at the side of the school right down to the bottom..it is ONLY UNTIL you get to stonehill, and along the front of the school and along dramsell rise that you have a choice of entrances nd exits...those residents will have ABSOLUTELYNO NEED OR DESIRE to drive from the bottom up through and out if the top of the estate...unless they are totally mad and looking to waste time getting stuck in traffic.
How many times have you people driven from the top down stonehill and through belland hill OUT onto the main road, in rush hour??? Its ridiculous and highly dangerous for a large volume of traffic to be going along the foxbrook road to get out...think of the children along it on their way to school..pure utter slefishness if people want to annoy others by doing so. As for loves way...you can only get so far...and then you are blocked by bollards at the point it joins foxbrook..
As for whether or not people wish to attend a meeting or not, well this is a discussion group...if anyone wants info like that kept secret, send a personal email to the desired person ans it won't appear on here at all..i dont think other people can take humbridge over things like this when they themselves point out to others on this site about 'if they attended meetings or not'...whats good for the goose is good for the gander...or so the saying goes.
I would personally like to say thanks to Marcus for your effort in putting forward the petition.
As for 'whether people got told about the gate or not when buying a place' what about those who haven't bought a place? Who were told that it was possible it could be open at a later date once all the building was completed...that was about 3 years ago...
There is no point in asking the whole 1200 houses/flats on the development as the bus gate doesn't affect the lower end at all, however the toll could be A LOT MORE if it was pit to each household down there, especially if they were given the 'golden carrot' of seeing the potential drop of cars, vans going out through stoneholl and dramsell rise...
I would like to know however, that if the petition doesn't succeed, what other options are open?
I look forward to the usual replies, the nice, the neutral and the snide ones..
All of which are welcome...
|
| |
|
Colfe |
06/12/2013 23:54 |
Link to minutes for those that are interested. http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/CMSWebsite/committee-document.aspx/cabinet-and-council/cabinet/2013-11-26/Minutes/6652/131126.doc
|
| |
|
Colfe |
09/12/2013 07:55 |
Hi Marcus. Any news from CCC post the 10 day notification period?Thanks.
|
(page
1
2)
|