SAve woodmansterne greenbelt

 

                SAVE OUR FIELD  !    SAVE OUR HEDGEROW !
                SAVE OUR TREES !   SAVE OUR PATHWAYS !

      DO NOT FORGET TO SIGN OUR E PETITION ON 38 DEGREES

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Why didn’t the residents of Woodmansterne object when the first site notice went up? 

 A:  No one saw it ! In October 2014 a few direct residents in Rectory Lane received notification letters regarding 14/02077/F . The site description simply stated East of Rectory Lane. We mistakenly took this as their own site .  The field is known as Drake's field and this should have been stated .Now they have planning permission , they are describing the site as the field between Rectory Lane and Lyndhurst Road.  A site notice was apparently posted on a lamp post opposite the proposed site entrance. How long it remained there is a mystery as no one appears to have seen it. When the  plans were later resubmitted  due to the original being rejected, letters were duly sent, but THERE WAS NOT A SECOND SITE NOTICE.                                               

                                      
Q2 : why didn’t the councillors alert the residents ?


A2  The original improvement went to planning, and was unanimously approved. There were no residents of Woodmansterne present at the meeting.

When the lagoon came up, this was effectively an addendum to allow the scheme to take place.       '' Frankly, it would have been very difficult to argue against the principle.”
Cllr Foreman

Q3     Why didn’t the Planning Officer realise that the site notice had failed to communicate? Surely 2 comments on a decision to damage Green belt was rather exceptional?


A3:   We don’t know


Q4   Why didn’t the Planning Department place more conditions on the Water Company to stop the permanent damage to Green Belt?


A4      We don’t know.


Q5    Did SESW ask for permission to use the field as a building site?


A5     No, they seem to have got permission for the lagoon and all the necessary alterations that will now allow them to put all these “temporary”structures on the field.

Q6    Why was an ecostudy not required prior to planning approval ?

A6    We don't know..... Planning officer refused to answer this question as I was registered in the system as a complainant . 

Q7  why was this PA not discussed with commitee ?

A7    We don't know..... Planning officer refused to answer this question as I was registered in the system as a complainant . 

Q8   Why did you not implement a 106 agreement on this application ?

A8   We don't know..... Planning officer refused to answer this question as I was registered in the system as a complainant . 

Q9  If SESW needed an access point via Rectory Lane, Why did R&B not ensure where ownership of this land would end up ?

A9    We don't know..... Planning officer refused to answer this question as I was registered in the system as a complainant .