Can this be allowed for building on Green Barrier / Belt ?

Home Forums Wrexham.com Forums Wrexham Forum Can this be allowed for building on Green Barrier / Belt ?

  • Author
    Posts
  • #58603

    @newrisingsun 3299 wrote:

    Taken from Brymbo Community Council minutes February 2012, shows the attitude of the developer and really shows Cllr Rogers working for the estate ;)

    Cllr Monti said that residents of the new estate should be a priority as they were promised a school, shop and road and had been sold a lie. He said that the CC was absolutely disgusted with BDL and the way this project had been handled. Cllr Rogers said that BDL were totally fed up with criticism from BCC and did not wish to meet with members. Cllr Monti said that they had made a lot of money out of Brymbo. Cllr Rogers said that BDL believed that BCC were not working with them. Cllr Monti responded that BCC had worked hand in glove with BDL; however Cllr Rogers said that BDL disagreed and did not feel that that the Community Council had and they were critical of the CC .Cllr A Stapley asked what criticism had BDL of the CC, and Cllr Rogers said that there were a number of things. He said they would not meet with the CC until there was something positive to discuss. Cllr Birch said that the situation with the Spine Road was a disgrace He said that BDL continually wanted to build more houses. He asked where the support was for the residents who had bought these new properties. Cllr Rogers said that BDL was working on new projects in their community, and he did not think a meeting would be called for the foreseeable future.

    I’d be interested in cllr rogers explaining what contact he has had with bdl to know such things about their view on bcc.

    And why if he has had such contact, how he is still unaware of their financial accounts?

    #58617

    Sam
    Participant

    Cllr Paul Rogers
    “The context in which I made a comment on the dividend referring to it as a “business decision” is that a past dividend issued by a company is not a material consideration when determining planning applications.”

    I’d like to highlight the above remark “a past dividend issued by a company is not a material consideration”.

    Sorry, but if the BDL would of completed the Spine Road when they had the available finance back in 2005 – 2006, as promised, instead off giving out large dividends.

    Then:
    Residents within your community on the New Brymbo site would not be fighting to get a developer promised spine road, school, services, supermarket & ammenities.
    Again residents within your community, the people of Tanyfron & the surrounding area would not be fighting to save a field which falls under the scope of green barrier and also trying to keep the villages identity and stop its infrastructure collapsing !
    Bits of Your rural community would not be utilized to fund an old bad business deal that went pear shaped many years ago.

    It’s a bit of a mess really Cllr Paul Rogers, isn’t it.

    #58638

    aphuw
    Member

    In the end it all comes down to the fact that a community is in some respects being asked – or more specifically being told– to bear the cost of firstly, WCBC’s inexplicable failure to secure a binding s.106 regarding the road at any earlier point, and secondly, the situation where no contingency was apparently held against the possibility of fluctuation in land values. In other words, the cost of a basic failure in project management.

    “Cost”, in this context, is the ongoing social and infrastructure cost of having at least an extra 300 houses (above the original 300 specified) foisted on a small, relatively rural village with fairly high unemployment and little capacity to absorb more housing. This has to be considered too. Nothing about the case so far, including the inspectors rejection of the ‘enabling’ development in 2011, suggests this has been fully considered.

    The supporting documents now seem to be saying that the main reason for resubmitting is that there is now an identified need for the housing, and that green belt is treated differently. However if this is based on the new LDP, it’s a premature argument: it was withdrawn and the old one is back in force. Quite apart from the fact that nationally, green belt protection hasn’t changed in any case – Pickles himself has stated that – further assessment will need to be made to work out whether the area has already absorbed as much housing as can be expected. Other than that nothing has changed: its still the same proposal the inspector rejected as fundamentally unacceptable.

    #58618

    Sam
    Participant

    Somehow, I feel that even here, the voting public don’t get any answers.
    WHY ?
    Not even a simple, I don’t know or I can’t answer that.

    Such a shame.

    #58639

    aphuw
    Member

    Someone showed me an interesting paper given a few years ago at, if I remember correctly, a conference on land reclamation by a member of Wrexham’s staff.

    It specifically identified the unique technical challenges posed by the Brymbo site and noted that these made the profits involved marginal, increasing the challenges. So all this was known about at the time – yet it seems to have returned and bitten several organisations on the backside. So why was nothing done to concretely guarantee the infrastructure completion in the original plan?

    Surely the idea of involving the private sector is that it can shoulder some of the risk in return for the opportunity of profit. If that profit level has to be protected at all social and environmental cost , what’s the point?

    #58604

    I note that cllr rogers has fallen silent. Is he hiding something?

    #58640

    aphuw
    Member

    I should say its more likely that as a member of the planning committee he is rather restricted as to what he can say.

    However – in my personal opinion – I think the same should perhaps have been applied to his press comments about “significant” support for the application (including in a wrexham.com story).

    #58605
    aphuw;3316 wrote:
    I should say its more likely that as a member of the planning committee he is rather restricted as to what he can say.

    However – in my personal opinion – I think the same should perhaps have been applied to his press comments about “significant” support for the application (including in a wrexham.com story).

    whilst i understand your view, I asked him where in the planning committee regulations does it say he can’t comment. He has chosen to ignore this..

    I want to give hime the benefit of the doubt but his behaviour of dodging questions doesn’t leave me with confidence that he has the best interests of the town or his ward at heart.

    #58619

    Sam
    Participant

    @thewayneinspain 3317 wrote:

    whilst i understand your view, I asked him where in the planning committee regulations does it say he can’t comment. He has chosen to ignore this..

    I want to give hime the benefit of the doubt but his behaviour of dodging questions doesn’t leave me with confidence that he has the best interests of the town or his ward at heart.

    In the context of being on the planning committee, I feel he should at least explain his ‘no comment’ stance, if this is the case.

    As not answering his constituents as our councillor, this is very poor and inexcusable.

    I wonder if anyone in power could answer the questions asked here without exposing the dark truth of this subject.

    #58620

    Sam
    Participant

    . Paul Rogers: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 03, 2009

    Affordable Housing
    It has been brought to my attention that today I have been referred to as a ‘free market loving tory’ which has certainly not come as a shock following my decision to call for a planning application to be deferred rather than refused to allow further negotiations between a developer and the council over the issue of affordable housing.

    The issues were complex – my arguments were not based on supporting the developer or to the detriment of affordable housing provision in Brymbo. My arguments were based on the wider context of the need to regenerate the former Brymbo Steelworks site sooner rather than later. The replan was to replace four bedroom properties with a mixture of two and three bedroom houses – something I would support as this alone will help to support more young people to enter into the housing ladder in their own communities. The reality is larger properties are not selling and therefore developments such as this one becomes unviable.

    There are very few ongoing large housing developments in the Wrexham area. One argument is that there would be economic benefits for Wrexham if we were to be more innovative.

    I would not support any development which would be to the detriment of the community and Plaid may not be aware that I have identified several sites which would provide a large affordable housing and I am working with officers at a strategic level to move this forward. I think it is fair to say this is evidence that I am supportive of more affordable housing across Wrexham. We need to identify where the key demands are and consult with the public in detail.

    To be quite honest I am proud to be a free market loving tory but not at the expense of my own community!

    I just found this, absolutely love the last line.

    Councillor Paul Rogers: Affordable Housing

Content is user generated and is not moderated before posting. All content is viewed and used by you at your own risk and Wrexham.com does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of any of the information displayed. The views expressed on these Forums and social media are those of the individual contributors.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.