Embedded Files
Here are representations, concerning the LDP, from four residents of Simpson Cross.
The representation from John Caffrey was accompanied by a petition from 17 residents.
These representations have been copied from a Council PDF file here. The layout is very poor but the wording should be more-or-less correct.
Gerard Davies, page 419
1750/DP/01 Davies SIMPSON CROSS - Object to
inclusion of Simpson Cross as a
service village - does not comply
with soundness test CE2, not
based on credible evidence base.
SP 12 The
Settlement Hierarchy .CE2 .. The strategy, policies and allocations are not
realistic and appropriate having considered the relevant
alternatives because they are not founded on a robust
and credible evidence base. The inclusion of Simpson
Cross as a service village is clearly a mistake given the
complete absence of services and facilities to support
the daily needs of the population. We are fortunate to
have a regular bus service to such facilities but we
currently lack the basics of a shop, place of worship,
public house, school or medical centre.
Simpson Cross is listed as a service village. Although
the term is not defined clearly in the plan, the village has
to provide a good provision of services and facilities to
meet the day to day needs of the population. Simpson
Cross has no shop, public house, school or church.
There are no services other than a bus stop. The
inclusion of Simpson Cross is clearly an error. There
should be no housing allocation to this settlement.
Furthermore I understand that there is inadequate
sewerage provision to the village and any housing
allocation would breach policies relating to habitats
directive and river basin planning. The overall policies
are sound, it is the inclusion of rural villages that are
regrettably little more than remote housing estates that I
feel is in error. I agree that villages that genuinely are
service centres should be protected and allowed to
flourish by focussing development and investment on
them. To allocate particularly social housing into villages
without any services or facilities would be against the
aims of the policy.
Gerard Davies, page 420
1750/DP/02 Davies GN 28 Residential
Allocations
SIMPSON CROSS -
(HSG/119/LDP/01) Object to
housing allocation on the basis
that there are insufficient services
in the village, that there is
inadequate sewerage and that
the housing allocation would
breach policies relating to
habitats directive and river basin
planning.
Alternative Site Reference -
ALT/D/119/01
.CE2 .. The strategy, policies and allocations are not
realistic and appropriate having considered the relevant
alternatives because they are not founded on a robust
and credible evidence base. The inclusion of Simpson
Cross as a service village is clearly a mistake given the
complete absence of services and facilities to support
the daily needs of the population. We are fortunate to
have a regular bus service to such facilities but we
currently lack the basics of a shop, place of worship,
public house, school or medical centre.
Simpson Cross is listed as a service village. Although
the term is not defined clearly in the plan, the village has
to provide a good provision of services and facilities to
meet the day to day needs of the population. Simpson
Cross has no shop, public house, school or church.
There are no services other than a bus stop. The
inclusion of Simpson Cross is clearly an error. There
should be no housing allocation to this settlement.
Furthermore I understand that there is inadequate
sewerage provision to the village and any housing
allocation would breach policies relating to habitats
directive and river basin planning. The overall policies
are sound, it is the inclusion of rural villages that are
regrettably little more than remote housing estates that I
feel is in error. I agree that villages that genuinely are
service centres should be protected and allowed to
flourish by focussing development and investment on
them. To allocate particularly social housing into villages
without any services or facilities would be against the
aims of the policy.
Roger Fowler, page 488
1809/DP/01 Fowler SIMPSON CROSS -
Page 488 Of 1818 25/05/2011
HSG/119/LDP/01 Object to
housing allocation - sewerage.
Alternative Site Reference -
ALT/D/119/01
GN 28 Residential
Allocations
Proposed: 14 Affordable Housing units - Simpson
Cross. HSG/119/LDP/01
I am concerned about this development in the Hamlet of
Simpsons Cross because of the Sewerage Problems.
+ If the sewage from this development DOES NOT
FEED into the MAIN SEWAGE SYSTEM in Simpson
Cross then I HAVE NO OBJECTION
+ If the sewage from this development feeds into the
MAIN SEWAGE SYSTEM in Simpson Cross then I
OBJECT VERY STRONGLY because
(A)The recent upgrade of the Sewage System in
Simpson Cross be Welsh Water was taken by Welsh
Water after reviewing the J.U.D.P. Consequently the
sewage storage tank, pumps and pip-run to ROCH were
sized to accommodate only INFILL HOUSING in the
Hamlet of Simpson Cross.
(B)Unfortunately the upgrade system is not always
adequate and this results in sewage overflow which
(1)floods into gardens
(2)floods into the brook adjacent to the Community Hall
Playing Fields
(3)Has caused stench in bathrooms
(4)Results in a stench in Courtfield Drive/Cuffern Road
area
(C)Sewage Problems are also encountered in the
Cuffern Rd/Castle View areas
N.B In certain areas of the Hamlet the sewage system
has not been ADOPTED leaving residents responsible
for the rectification of any blockages or overflows.
Viv Morgan, page 1139
2090/DP/01 Morgan SIMPSONS CROSS - Objection
to housing allocation East of Hill
Lane, Simpsons Cross
(HSG/119/LDP/01) (PCC
Summary). Alternative Site
Reference - ALT/D/119/01
GN 28 Residential
Allocations
Full Response
I do not consider the plan to be sound in its selection of
site HSG/119/LDP/01 as a candidate site.
I consider that the adoption of this site fails the
consistency test of soundness.
SP13 explains the concept of Settlement Boundaries for
various centres of habitation including service villages.
Simpson Cross is a service village. The settlement
boundary defines areas that have a physical functional
and visual connection to a settlement.
Site HSG/119/LDP/01 fails to meet these criteria. If
permitted to remain within the settlement boundary the
danger is that it will be the "thin end of the wedge" so far
as development of land to the South and North of it is
concerned which, as regards the land to the North,
would be completely unacceptable to the owners of
properties in Castle View on grounds of visual amenity.
If there is a requirement for additional housing, provision
within Simpson Cross, and I express no view on that,
examination of the proposals map to my mind readily
identifies at least three sites that would have a better
physical functional and visual connection to the village.
John Caffrey, page 1345
2155/DP/01 Caffrey 18 Objection to classification of
Simpsons Cross as a service
village (PCC Summary)
SP 12 The
Settlement Hierarchy
FULL RESPONSE
The plan is unsound because it does not pass the
following tests:
Procedural Test P1: "It has been prepared in
accordance with the Delivery Agreement including the
Community Involvement Scheme." There has been
insufficient information and a lack of relevant
consultation with residents of some villages affected by
the plan.
Consistency Test C4: "It has regard to the relevant
community strategy/ies (and National Park Management
Plan"). The "relevant community strategy" has not been
properly applied with regard to services and facilities at
some allocations. The strategy is not founded on a
robust and credible evidence base.
FULL RESPONSE
[With reference to Appendix 1, Texts of soundness,
Procedural Test P1: "It has been prepared in
accordance with the Delivery Agreement including the
Community Involvement Scheme."
Lack of consultation: I can only refer to the situation in
my own village of Simpson Cross where there has been
a total lack of consultation between our councillors and
residents when compared with Roch, for example.
There has been no consultation with residents
regarding HSG/119/LDP/01. Whilst there is no
suggestion of any impropriety, there is a reluctance to
ask for advice or information from our Councillor who is
a Cabinet Minister for Highways and Planning and is
believed to own land relevant to the proposed
development (HSG/119/LDP/01).
I have not been consulted at any time about the Plan,
nor have any other villages I have spoken to.
The site notice for HSG/119/LDP/01 was unprotected
piece of paper stapled to a short post some 50 yards
into Hill lane, when my attention was drawn to it the
notice had fallen onto the ground into mud and was
almost unreadable. Hardly in full view of villagers!
[With reference to Appendix 1, Tests of soundness,
Consistency Test C4: "It has regard to the relevant
community strategy/ies (and National Park Management
Plan)."]
Lack of Consistency: Having read the Plan in its
entirety I do not accept that there is consistency in
applying the Settlement Hierarchy.
The Rural Facilities Survey Report categorises Rural
settlements as:
(1) A Service Centre, or
(2) A Primary Service Village, or
(3) A Secondary Service Village, or
(4) Another village or hamlet
In respect of Simpson Cross I would point out that the
Rural Facilities Survey shows the village as a
"SERVICE VILLAGE" (not classed as primary or
secondary) with a "weighted score of service provision"
of 13 shown on page 32.
However, on page 16 under Primary Service Villages
Simpson Cross is not listed, whilst Roch is.
On page 17 under Secondary Service Villages Simpson
Cross is not listed whilst Pelcomb Cross is.
I do not believe that Simpson Cross should be classified
as a SERVICE VILLAGE as it does not meet the
requirement of 3.23 (page 16) as a settlement with "an
excellent service provision, scoring 15 or more with
shared characteristics including a shop, public house."
Simpson Cross has (as prime services):
_ NO SHOP
_ NO POST OFFICE
_ NO PUBLIC HOUSE
_ NO INFANT/PRIMARY SCHOOL
_ NO DAILY TRAIN SERVICE
_ NO PHARMACY
_ NO GP SURGERY
_ NO PETROL STATION
Also Simpson Cross has (as additional
services/facilities):
_ NO PLACE OF WORSHIP
_ NO CRECHE/PLAYGROUP
_ NO IRREGULAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
_ NO VILLAGE GREEN/COMMON LAND
_ NO PERMANENT LIBRARY
_ NO RECYCLING FACILITY
The Survey Report is wrong.
Of the listed services Simpson Cross has only the
following:
_ A Community Hall (2 points as a Prime Service)
_ A daily bus service (2 points as a Prime Service)
_ There is a "recreational open space"/children's play
area (1 point as Additional services)*
_ Mains sewerage (1 point as Additional services)
_ Page 32 shows "Surplus sewerage capacity" (1 point
as Additional services). Appendix 11 includes a column
showing whether a settlement has a mains sewerage
system, but does not give any indication of spare
capacity in the system. Simpson Cross does not have
surplus sewerage capacity. The plans for 10 homes off
Cuffern Road had been recommended for refusal by
planning officers due to insufficient capacity in the public
sewerage system. A previous application for 20 homes
was withdrawn following objections raised by Dwr
Cymru Welsh Water about sewerage capacity.
* Shown as a Prime service = 2 points on Page 32 but
as Additional services = 1 point on other references!
From the above I conclude that the correct "weighted
score of service provisions" for Simpson Cross is 6 not
13.
Even if the point marked * was confirmed as 2 points
the score would not exceed 7.
There is no way that this village can satisfy a Service
Village category as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy
(page 22) Rural Facilities Survey Report 2007-08 (4.3).
A score of 6 would change the category to "All other
villages and hamlets" (4.5) as settlements that have
"few services and facilities".
A score, which I would dispute, of 7 would marginally
place the village into the Secondary Service Village
category.
Simpson Cross (with a score of 6 or 7) cannot be
compared to Roch (with a score of 23) as a Service
Village; when Camrose (with a score of 7) is classed as
a Large Local Village and Pelcomb Cross (with a score
of 9) is classed as a Small local village.
I feel that whilst the "settlement hierarchy" is a
reasonable method of assessing services it fails in that
it relies only on a total of points without regard to the
make up of those numbers beyond Prime and Additional
services.
By this I mean that adding the points for two Additional
services such as a Village Green and Recycling Facility
would be equivalent to the points scored for a Prime
service such as a Shop or a Post Office! This is clearly
not representative of the true needs of a community and
is similar to the situation in Simpson Cross which has
none of the most important services.
Taking into account the significant lack of services in the
village, additional development such as
HSG/119/LDP/01 would break with stated
sub-objectives (Key Issue - Infrastructure, transport and
Accessibility (3) Page 23) of the Plan: "to promote
housing development in settlements where good levels
of services already exist to reduce the need to travel"
and "to reduce the need to travel to access work,
services and goods".
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE
_ Lack of consultation
_ Lack of consistency in applying the "settlement
hierarchy".
_ The Simpson Cross settlement hierarchy is correct -
Simpson Cross should not be in "Service Village".
_ It is proposed to build on best quality agricultural land.
_ Inevitable increase in traffic and vehicle use.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse