I think some direct appeal to decision makers is needed over the Flitt Leys Close proposals. I have written to the head of Central Beds Sustainable Communities (planning in pounds, shillings and pence)below
Dear Mr Alderson:
I am writing in a personal capacity as a Cranfield Parish Councillor and as a resident of the village. You will be aware that the 17 January Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee's approval of the development brief for the "Central Motors" site, 135 houses plus a school, off Flitt Leys Close in Cranfield is highly controversial.
I attended the meeting and heard a mixture of incredulity and scathing criticism from members. My fellow parish councillor Roger Baker addressed the committee and pointed out the "frenzied jostling" for parking and drop off points that already takes place outside the current lower school (Cranfield Church of England Academy) site in Court Road. Despite this, the committee subsequently approved the brief following an amendment proposed by ward councillor Ken Matthews that a traffic management scheme should be introduced in the event of an application for a school. We heard assurances from officers that this was practicable along with the possibility of allocated parking spaces for Flitt Leys residents authorising parking on the footpath ("on-off" parking). You will; be aware that a proposed health centre will also use Flitt Leys as an access.
This news has been met with consternation in Cranfield. I am not surprised, therefore, to learn that the Central Beds Council Executive has sent the proposal back to Suscomms OSC for a second look. One of our ward councillors, at last week's parish council, explained that this had occurred because there was confusion about whether members were voting for a "school" or a "school site".
Personally I cannot see what difference this will make. I hope officers will reconsider their earlier advice and remove the school from the development brief. The only feasible outcome of a second look is to reject the development brief if it contains provision for a school or site without alternative access.
Then Central Beds; Learning and Children Services needs to take a step back and start thinking about the desperate needs of the Academy; for expansion on-site or relocation. Sooner or later Cranfield will host another 500 plus houses with a significant impact on school places. We need a strategic plan with different arms of the council (planning and education) talking to each other. The Academy needs a range of relocation options which factor in accessibility. Neither the school nor the community needs a major public service for small children with a single access through a narrow residential corridor.
And, in the meantime, perhaps we could have a traffic management scheme introduced to Court Road to show how effective this is, as a solution.
Dear Mr Alderson:
I am writing in a personal capacity as a Cranfield Parish Councillor and as a resident of the village. You will be aware that the 17 January Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee's approval of the development brief for the "Central Motors" site, 135 houses plus a school, off Flitt Leys Close in Cranfield is highly controversial.
I attended the meeting and heard a mixture of incredulity and scathing criticism from members. My fellow parish councillor Roger Baker addressed the committee and pointed out the "frenzied jostling" for parking and drop off points that already takes place outside the current lower school (Cranfield Church of England Academy) site in Court Road. Despite this, the committee subsequently approved the brief following an amendment proposed by ward councillor Ken Matthews that a traffic management scheme should be introduced in the event of an application for a school. We heard assurances from officers that this was practicable along with the possibility of allocated parking spaces for Flitt Leys residents authorising parking on the footpath ("on-off" parking). You will; be aware that a proposed health centre will also use Flitt Leys as an access.
This news has been met with consternation in Cranfield. I am not surprised, therefore, to learn that the Central Beds Council Executive has sent the proposal back to Suscomms OSC for a second look. One of our ward councillors, at last week's parish council, explained that this had occurred because there was confusion about whether members were voting for a "school" or a "school site".
Personally I cannot see what difference this will make. I hope officers will reconsider their earlier advice and remove the school from the development brief. The only feasible outcome of a second look is to reject the development brief if it contains provision for a school or site without alternative access.
Then Central Beds; Learning and Children Services needs to take a step back and start thinking about the desperate needs of the Academy; for expansion on-site or relocation. Sooner or later Cranfield will host another 500 plus houses with a significant impact on school places. We need a strategic plan with different arms of the council (planning and education) talking to each other. The Academy needs a range of relocation options which factor in accessibility. Neither the school nor the community needs a major public service for small children with a single access through a narrow residential corridor.
And, in the meantime, perhaps we could have a traffic management scheme introduced to Court Road to show how effective this is, as a solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment