Having problems with message search?
Apologies again for the delay.
Nic
Audrey's notes:-
15-Sept-2007
Hello again,
Some good news this time, which you will certainly need if you have seen the mess at Parkgate Road access site. Shock and horror!
First of all the city planning say that the work regarding the whole site must meet with their approval otherwise Mr Neil Edwards has not carried out the planning agreement Jill Houldbrook informs me.
Also that health and safety people are now involved too, since the whole sandstone wall down to the foundations has been removed and yet more soil, from the workings dumped and compacted on the top of the embankment resulting in yet more weight and height and a real danger slipage.
I have also pointed out that the slope could become a ski slope or an adventure ride for yobs on bikes. The curved red line marked out appears to be the new access/exit point - this is far too tight and highly dangerous too. Also impossible for the many disabled people using their mobility vehicles to shop at Sealand with safety.
Residents are horrified since they expected to have trees and green space and not be a grandstand view to everyone now mounting the dumped heap.
Please contact the tree officer regarding the raft of trees removed as their roots also helped stablise the embankment.
This developement resulted in felling trees, some of which it had been agreed would not be felled as part of the planning approval. These included the two much loved and mature oak trees. The developer must surely be made to compensate for these too.
The whole of the lovely 'meadow' area has now been covered by the clay dumpings. I doubt anything will grow in this mess as top soil is an important part of landscaping under these conditions this must also be considered. Gone are the wild cowslips etc that snuggled into the growth gone as are all the other wildlife flowers. These and many substantial trees must be part of the lanscaping. They must be of the right growing height for the site and careful consideration given to create the same conditions for the flora, we hope will also be replaced. Suitable fencing at the top of this slope must also be provided at the developers expense is also needed.
We shall await reports from the area ward councillors Jill Houlbrook, Hilarie Mcnae, Pat Lott and Jean Evans, Colin Bain etc. Thank gooness they have all been very active regarding this issue
Jill has arranged a site visit with Peter Foster Sustrans ( Area Manager) - Ann Jones (CPRE) and I will also be present.
Audrey
10-Sept-2007
A small report regarding the dispute ref. Parkgate Road access. Councillors have come to the conclusion there is little that can stop the access being altered and therefore encroachment of the embankment is taking place. The access it turns out has not been safeguarded by any authority. The Executive Officer now responsible for the planning department has been notified regarding certain matters.
If you would like (and it may be a good idea) to view the plans. An arrangement has been for interested parties to view them tomorrow at the planning office please quote the following numbers I have been given 06/213/06/223 06/817. I hope this is the correct information as looking at my records I see the first appeal plan gives the number as 05/01224/REM - X0605/A/05/2005177. Developers can and do often change plans at will. It seems mighty unfair on us all since of course we have no idea of these changes and then objections are not made. The whole situation is a mess, from what I can see of it, from beginning to end.
I have requested that Cllr. Neil Ritchie studies the plans since he is an architect and would be able to pick up any incorrect measurements regarding the last planning notification sent to the planning dept from Neil Edwards - the developer. Many feel the house and double garage are partly on the original access land and that somehow the developer has grabbed more room by removing the sandstone wall thus just managing to 'make the grade' giving just enough space to allow access for emergency vehicles - a stated condition of land sale. Some of the residents, especially no 3 on the Queensgate site are most unhappy about the loss of trees etc and also the alteration in the access.
I have suggested if it is found that the property has not been built according to the approved final plan (I believe there have been around 6 different ones!) then the developer ought to think of demolishing one of the two garages on this plot and replacing it with a modesty(protection) wall.
I have continually asked to see or have a copy of the landscaping of this embankment and what the plans are regarding the sandstone wall. It seems crazy to me that these heavy vehicles are on and embankment without any wall. I have queried this and asked for health and safety to be informed since piling the soil and what remains of the very large sandstone blocks on this area must make it a huge risk. Also that all the trees etc., the roots of which helped hold this embankment have been felled.
Our local councillors are keeping me well informed and I shall pass on further details if necessary.
Please contact your councillor if you have any information regarding this development. It certainly would be an idea to contact the planning dept too, since we could end up by Neil Edwards (the developer) producing a packet of seeds to offset the felling of all the trees he agreed not to fell on this development and also all the trees etc now felled on the Millennium Greenway itself.
Audrey
5-Sept-2007
This is a letter from Cllr Jean Evans who was part of a group of councillors at a meeting held yesterday regarding the Parkgate Road access. Many people contacted me to say the equipment had arrived yesterday morning. Looking into this as not had any further communication from other councillors yet.
Audrey
COPY OF LETTER -
I am writing to thank you for responding to our leaflet concerning the Queensgate Housing Development and the blocking of access to the cycleway. The response has been excellent, with many residents from wards around the city showing great concern about the potential loss of access to the Greenway.
The good news is that, owing to the concerns of local residents and prompt action by local councillors, the developer, who until recently had shown no interest in anything beyond his own business and profits, has been made to understand that he has to fulfil his obligation to keep the access open for cyclists and pedestrians and also provide access for emergency and maintenance vehicles. Chester City Planning made clear that the two metre access he was offering was entirely unacceptable. Edwards Homes has agreed to the paved over area they had wanted to be kept private, remaining as the access for essential vehicles, while they have also agreed to build a three metre wide access at right angles to that for the cyclists and pedestrian access, across the area of shrubs that had already been designated for clearing.
I have pressed for residents to be able to see the alteration to the original plan before the developer goes ahead with this work. The plan for the new work has been scanned into the City Council website and is now available for inspection. We cannot ask for a new planning application to be made, because the original application was for 'Outline and subsequent reserved matters'. Changes have already been made under delegated powers as you will know and this is another one. In my view the use of delegated powers in this way is not desirable but planning law in this case as in so many others is not on the side of residents. The access the developer is prepared to build is immediately adjacent to the one originally envisaged, only having shifted by a few feet and realistically this is as far as we can go. I am advised that the developer will then have been deemed to have discharged the conditions and any attempt to query that would be certain to result in a decision being made in favour of the developer.
Edwards Homes was planning to begin work immediately and already has vehicles on the site. I have, however, persuaded them not to go ahead with digging before Friday to enable residents to look at the plan. I believe in the meantime a fence is being constructed to protect the work when it begins. Unfortunately we are in a situation where further protest is almost certain to end in the loss of what has already been agreed and the very real danger of ending up with no access at all.
The Planning Department's handling of this development leaves a great deal to be desired, while the developer has behaved in a way which cynically ignores the interests of residents. I pledge to work to try to improve the way the Planning system works and I have already secured firm support from a senior planning officer to improve the way the process works. Please continue to assist us by giving us any relevant information about developments as soon as possible.
End of Cllr Jean Evans letter
23-Aug-2007
Hello
Just to keep you in the picture, yesterday it was reported to the City Council Enforcement Officer - Les Smith and us that activity was taking place at the access. The person reporting did not stop to ask any details from those working. Ralph popped down on his cycle to find Mark (Sustrans Warden) making ready for a walled dog waste bin. We have already informed Les and also heard there has been no response as yet from Mr. Edwards the Queensgate developer ref. this access.
If you see any activity do ring me or Les as an enforcement order will be placed. Any engineering work such as cutting into the embankment must have planning approval and must not be attempted without this.
Happy walking and cycling.
Audrey
21-Aug-2007
The Mr. Edwards - Queensgate developer feels he does not want to share the road along side properties at Parkgate Road access. The access is used by those willing to leave their cars at home and travel green along the Millennium Greenway. Perhaps he did not realise the need to encourage this to help reduce global warming?
Cllr Neil Ritchie (City Environment Portfolio Holder) has informed me the public are entitled to use this Parkgate Road access, without any interference.
We do wonder what planning approval means these days and how some developers appear to wriggle out of agreements. Also why it is we write with reservations about certain details of a planning application, can then be assured that an access is safe when it appears developers can argue the point? Residents must surely have been aware of the access upon walking around the area in which they were about to purchase a property? The house with double garage and added ground level, brick paved area (patio/car space?) at the side is the problem here, and we can't understand how this attained planning permission, if indeed it did. I could not see an outline of this bricked paved area on the plan shown in the planning office.
If the public had known the following actions could /would happen, agreements or not, there would have been mass objections to the Queensgate planning application in the first place.
1.Developer removed police sign, the County/City/Sustrans large sign as well as the others directing pedestrians and cyclists to the very popular Millennium Greenway. This was reported in Feb.2006 with strong objections.
2.If we, as ordinary member of the public, knew that trees were rendered unsafe when trenches are made too close to the roots what excuse has a developer? The approved application had conditions attached such as protection of some of the many trees on this land, mainly for the much cherished mature oak trees.
3. An assurance that the access to Sustrans Millennium Greenway would be protected seems now to mean the developer wishes it shunted into the embankment and make this impossibly narrow at that, between a wall and the wooden fence. We hope that council planning jump on developers with the same ferocity an ordinary member of the public would receive under similar circumstances.
Many Anti-CDTS members along with Friends of the Greenway have requested they be represented as usual we did not campaign to keep our most popular green travel corridor to have restricted access. Objections will be sent but I also encourage you to write voicing your own thoughts to the local press, your own councillor or contact Councillor Jean Evans running a campaign regarding this access.
We should all remember the aim of our Councils, Sustrans and ourselves is to reduce pollution and congestion whilst travelling healthily. Everyone ought to be encouraging this and it is hoped they now will.
A. Hodgkinson
Offline 
Send Email