aphuw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Also what’s this “acquisition” of more land thing? Wouldn’t involve buying it from the landowners BDL, would it?
The neglect of the historic steelworks site is another shameful facet of the whole mess. As you know, there were media reports a couple of years back that the old buildings were actually collapsing through lack of attention. Furthermore a CADW survey indicated that substantial (and costly) remedial works were necessary.
There were suggestions bundled into the infamous ‘enabling’ development that leftover cash could be used to “kick start” the area’s restoration, but these were so vague as to be useless. An ‘enabling’ development generally contains a clear commitment to specific amounts and outcomes. I have yet to see anything of this kind.
Either way it’ll need a huge chunk of money and I wonder what other development concessions might be demanded before any private sector manna falls from heaven – I’m never convinced of the benefits of making these things dependent on anything but the voluntary sector.
Furthermore the latest plans that I have seen from the Council’s records look quite different to those originally put forward in 2003ish. There are two blocks of 5 storey flats actually *in* the heritage area. One is right on top of the site that the Heritage Group, in a presentation available on its website, identifies as suitable for a visitor centre! I hope the Council and developers have kept the Heritage Group aware of all this.
As for the remarkable “fossil forest”, the current plans show it situated between some kind of pub/restaurant and a petrol station. Really lends it a touch of class, eh? I am very concerned there is pressure to screw yet more development “opportunities” out of the site.
In planning terms then “exceptional circumstances” would be where the benefit outweighs the negative impact. However, I don’t think that was ever proven here: the inspector said that there was no evidence that all other options had been considered to deliver the infrastructure and that the negative impact was very serious indeed, indeed it fundamentally breached the development plan. As I mentioned the reason for resubmission doesn’t address this but argues other circumstances changed – however there is some doubt these other circumstances are that compelling an argument either.
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).
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?
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.
mrsB: no one here is objecting to the spine road, merely to the completely inappropriate use of “enabling development” to fund it, and the fact the developer is trying to put through an application soundly rejected as it was, to put it bluntly, a bad development.
As for Cllr Rogers, he may well give the ‘community’ (which in this context you seem to be saying is the new development?) plenty of support but we are merely asking him if he believes his actions were sensible as a planning committee member.
I like that the supporting document makes the “no cost to the public purse” argument over the road, while arguing that the usual schools contribution (designed, of course, to mitigate the social and financial impact of the houses they will build) should be waived. The developer giveth and the developer (practically in the same breath) taketh away.
The only consolation is, I suppose, that the story should really go national given the obvious strength of community feeling over this. The whole saga really needs to be aired again, including the handling of matters by WCBC (who also flogged off Tanyfron’s playing fields for housing in the middle of it).
As for Cllr Rogers he should probably re-read the main points of conduct for planning committee members and ask himself whether it is really sensible to associate himself so closely in the press with “support” for a development.
PS. The “old” LDP is still active for the time being.
