Skelmanthorpe Community Action Group 16 July 2008

Growing concern over speeding vehicles.

Two years ago Skelmanthorpe Community Action Group conducted a survey of local residents, to identify the issues causing most concern in the village. The growing volume of traffic, and increasing numbers of drivers who ignore the speed limits, where high on the agenda.
Since then traffic volumes have continued to grow and so has the problem of speeding.  A small minority, of mainly young drivers, seem to ignore the speed limits completely; indeed some have been seen racing other vehicles through the village. It is only a matter of time before their disregard for safety will result in a serious accident.

Local police have been urged to act.

SCAG has been in discussions with local police about the problem, and hope that steps will be taken to address it urgently.  SCAG Chairman Christopher Ward had this to say about speeding in the village.
"We are very concerned about this issue, as a few people are putting lives at risk. There are people driving at high speed through the village, especially in the evenings. Residents along Station Road are also badly affected, with too many people driving at speed, despite the road frequently being restricted by parked vehicles.
The mini roundabout at the Jones Homes development is treated like a chicane with young drivers trying to see how fast they can drive through it. We have even seen people driving on the wrong side of the road through it. This roundabout is a danger spot at any time, being very badly located.

Parkgate Bridge is used as a racetrack.

Even worse there are a small number of drivers who seem to revel in trying to negotiate the narrow section of road, with its blind bends, at the bridge in Parkgate at the fastest speed possible.  There are near misses on this bridge daily and frequent minor accidents, sometime soon, two vehicles will meet head-on, at speed, and the results will be life threatening. We are asking the police to take urgent action to catch the culprits"

A lower speed limit.

SCAG plans to conduct a survey of local people to assess the level of support for a reduction in the speed limit, through the village, to 20 mph. It would also like to gauge the level of support for traffic calming measures at the bridge in Parkgate.

Return to top of page

Flooding risk remains as high as ever, 16th June 2008

Twelve months on from the floods that swept through much of Yorkshire last year and what has central and local government done to prevent a reoccurrence? If the experience of Parkgate residents is anything to go by the answer is precisely nothing, except for the actions they have taken to help themselves.

Twelve months ago the road bridge over Baildon Dike was unable to cope with the volume of water coming down the stream, mainly because a thick deposit of silt and debris under the bridge restricted the flow of water significantly. As a consequence several houses bordering the stream were flooded.

Skelmanthorpe Community Action Group has petitioned all responsible departments at both local and national government level to get the bridge cleared. The campaign has been ongoing for the whole of the past year. In February Kirklees Council finally agreed to clear the bridge, but nearly 5 months later there is still no sign of the work being done.

In frustration the local residents have spent thousands of pounds constructing their own flood defences to try to keep floodwater away from their property. But despite their efforts there is no guarantee the flood defences will work unless the bridge is cleared.

SCAG representative Richard Graham comments. "Anyone taking a look under the bridge can see that at least a third of its capacity is blocked by debris. The cost and time needed to clear it is minimal, yet twelve months on we are still waiting.

I think most of us have lost all faith in local government, so we have all tried to help ourselves. We pay huge amounts of council tax but get nothing in return. We have spent thousands of pounds between us, we shouldn't need to spend, and we can't get any of it back from those responsible for our problem."

SCAG is anxious to hear from any other areas in Kirklees, affected by last year's floods, to find out if they have experienced the same lack of action.

Return to top of page

Minutes of the SCAG meeting held on 21 May 2008.

Present
Chris, Helen, Wilf, Anne, Jean, Pat, Susan, Richard, Howard.
Apologies
Elaine, Carole, Philip.

• Matters arising from the minutes of16 April.
• Letter to Bovis Homes. We had a response from John Ritchie two weeks ago, to say they are still considering our letter, but since then there has been no response. Richard to follow up.
•  Richard to work with Andy to produce a new SCAG volunteers contact group.
• Contact with other groups. Chris has tried to make contact with other groups with limited success. Chris to try again. Jean will try to find out who the liaison officer is.
• Helen is still waiting for a travel plan for Scisset Middle School.
• The minutes of the last meeting were proposed to be an accurate record by Pat and Seconded by Susan.
• Review of meeting with John and Elaine on 23 April.
• We will ask Elaine why the fees for section 106 can't be paid in advance. Chris to action.
• Parking outside Shelley High School. The police say nothing illegal is being done. We will suggest they use the tennis courts for extra parking. We should also suggest they put double yellow lines on the other side of the road so at least that side of the road is clear. Howard suggests we contact Denby Dale Road safety committee. Howard to action.
• Wilf suggested we ask for a reduced speed limit through the dip near the High School and down the hill into Skelamanthorpe. Howard to action.
• The minutes were proposed to be correct by Wilf and seconded by Richard,
• Minutes of meeting of 21 May.
• Skelmanthorpe Stones. Howard reported on progress. We have approval for one stone but not on the side where the school is. The headmaster is concerned about them being vandalised, so doesn't want one outside the school.  A new site has been found for a stone on the school side of the road but this will have to be a smaller stone. We need to get Highways back to give approval for this new site. Howard has found people to transport and lift the stone. We still need a builder to produce the plinth. Howard has the invoice for the stones so we can now ask the council for the money.
•  Chris had a meeting with Joe Malik, about the mini roundabout on Station Road. It is proposed that a big sign is placed near the island to say the road ahead is not suitable for large vehicles. Joe proposed to raise the roundabout to slow people further. They may move the bollards to try to prevent people cutting across it.
• Wood Street. Joe also had a look at this and suggested there should be plateaus to reduce speeds. Helen reported that all residents are in favour of plateaus and a 20 mph speed limit. Helen is organising a meeting with Joe Malik and the residents to agree the way forward. Since the last meeting the road has been re-surfaced yet again and in the process they had blocked the drains and made the flooding risk worse. Helen to follow up with Elaine.
• Speeding on Station Road. Joe Malik reports that the police believe the speeding happens at night and at weekends. They have asked us to check when the worst times are, then the police will have a presence at those times. We will suggest 7.30 to 8.30 on any Friday. Chris to action.
• Helen reports that the Yorkshire Post carried a story today saying the government plans to force through their housing plans. Look North carried a similar story this evening.
• We will ask the planning dept if they have plans to review the green belt in our area. Richard to action.
• Chris to contact the planning dept for an up to date plan.
• Plant and coffee morning. We will open at 9.30 until 1 pm.

Helpers, Susan, Jean, Richard, Helen, Wilf, Pat. All agreed to help with cakes or biscuits.
Chris has produced four re-usable signs. Chris to send our logo to the graphics company when Susan has set it up.
Pat is taking care of the supplies we need for the coffee morning.
3.9. Web site seems to be working well and its easy to use. Richard to ask Andy how many hits we are getting.

• Flooding at Park Gate. Kirklees promises it will clear the bridge at Park Gate.
• The trench across the road outside Bovis Homes site has now been filled in.
• Nothing to report on the Piggeries Site.
• There are problems with access to the proposed community centre. We should produce a newsletter to raise awareness of the issues and start to put pressure on Kirklees and the developers to meet their obligations. We should have information available on this and all other issues we are concerned with available at the coffee morning. Richard to action.
• Notice board. Wilf reported on progress and will make arrangements for it being installed correctly. We expect installation at any time.
• Commercial Road crossing. We are still waiting for the final school travel plans to be submitted.
• Stage Coach. Wilf has circulated a report about the change of ownership of the bus services.
• Financial report – we are still solvent.
• Fund raising. We will try to set up another barbeque on16 August. This to be on agenda for next meeting.
• Next meeting to be Wednesday 2 July at Chris's – 7.30pm.

Return to top of page

Have your say on housing developments in Kirklees, 23th April 2008

You can have your say on Kirklees plans for housing developments in our area.  The council is currently consulting interested parties about its proposals for affordable housing developments, as part of the overall plan for meeting central governments house building targets. If you want to make your views known you have until 15 May, so don't delay, do it now.

Simply contact www.kirklees.gov.uk/ldf and read the proposals for affordable housing, then complete the on-line comment form to share your views. You will also find information about the timetable for consultation on the Local Development Framework, which will set out proposals for meeting central government targets for building over 40,000 houses in Kirklees.

SCAG supports affordable housing.

We know from feedback, that although many people in Skelmanthorpe are worried about large-scale housing developments, there is support for more affordable housing for local people.

Many people are concerned about the impact of development on the green spaces around us, and the pressure they put on the local infrastructure. SCAG shares those concerns and continues to fight inappropriate developments. However, there is a real shortage of affordable housing, for local people, and SCAG supports initiatives to supply this demand.

We believe Kirklees proposals for building affordable housing are badly flawed.

A detailed breakdown of our concerns can be found on the SCAG web site at www.skelmanthorpeaction.net but we have summarised some of our key concerns here to help you to respond to the planning proposals quickly and easily.

Our key concerns are:

Paragraph 6.1 (I) proposes that Greenfield land could under, certain circumstances, be used for building affordable housing. SCAG doesn't believe this is necessary as there is sufficient brown field land available to meet ALL current building requirements.  The criteria for allowing building on Greenfield land are not spelled out, so under what circumstances will planning consent be given? The green spaces around us must be protected for future generations, so we must fight this proposal. We believe this proposal will provide a back door entry for developers to build on green land.

Paragraph 6.1(iii) would allow developers to buy their way out of the obligation to build affordable housing by paying a sum of money in lieu. SCAG believes this proposal should be scrapped as it could provide a cheaper option for developers than building the much needed affordable houses.

Paragraph 6 also suggests builders should be allowed to opt for building affordable houses on separate sites rather than mixing them with the rest of the planned development. SCAG believes this proposal may mean that, once the developers get approval to follow this option, they will focus on building their commercial site and then not bother to build the affordable houses. There is also the risk that where houses are built they will be on less suitable sites and may be of a poorer design and build quality, as the developer won't have to worry about the impact of these homes on the commercial development.

There is nothing in the document about design or building quality. SCAG is concerned that affordable housing will be of both an unsuitable design and poor build quality. There are already examples of unsuitable developments that don't fit in with the buildings around them. The Jones Homes development on Station Road is a prime example, neither the design nor the materials used fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood, as a consequence it sticks out like a sore thumb.
SCAG is particularly concerned that affordable houses are built rather than apartments. Apartment blocks do not fit into a village environment and people want houses to raise their families in.

Return to top of page

Skelmanthorpe school needs a lollipop lady or man, could it be you?

SCAG has been campaigning for a zebra crossing to help protect Skelmanthorpe school children crossing Commercial Road. With the help of our Councillors we have been successful, but the money to build the crossing won't be available for another 12 months. In the meantime children have to cross this busy road without even the protection of a crossing patrol.

So if you think this is just the job for you, why not contact Councillor Elaine Ward, on 01484 863797, who will put you in touch with the appropriate department in Kirklees MDC.

Return to top of page

The bus to Barnsley will be reinstated in July, 30th April 2008

Thanks to the efforts of Councillor Elaine Ward, supported by the SCAG campaign, the bus to Barnsley will be reinstated in July, for a six months trial period.

Councillor Ward has worked very hard to make this happen and speaking to SCAG members said " It is essential now that everyone supports the bus service to Barnsley when it is re-instated. We have to demonstrate over the six months trial period that there is sufficient demand for the service to justify its long term viability. I have done all I can it is now up to the people of Skelmanthorpe to use it, or we will lose it again and probably permanently."

So please support your local bus service.

Return to top of page

Kirklees will take action to reduce the flooding risk in Parkgate, 30th April 2008

Following a long campaign by SCAG, supported by all our local councillors, the Environment Agency and Kirklees have agreed to clear the stream and bridge at Parkgate to prevent a repeat of last summers floods.

Return to top of page

SCAG coffee morning Saturday 7 June, 30th April 2008

The next SCAG fund raising event will take the form of a coffee morning to be held at Skelmanthorpe Library and Council Offices. Please come along and support your community action group.

Return to top of page

Minutes of the SCAG meeting held on 23 April 2008.

Present - Carol, Howard, Helen, Chris, Anne, Richard, Pat
Apologies  - Philip, Jean, Susan, Wilf
Guests  - Councillor Elaine Ward,  Prospective Councillor John

1. Bovis Homes development.

   Councillor Elaine Ward reported that she attended an enforcement meeting to record that Bovis Homes have not complied with the section 106 nor carried out the traffic calming measures. The response was that Bovis would comply within 6 weeks. Councillor Ward asked how many millions the Council was owed for section 106 by the builders who failed to pay the fees. The exact figure isn't known but it can be said it runs into millions of pounds.
   
   Councillor Ward reported that a new officer has been appointed to enforce 106 in future. SCAG members asked about collecting money owed from the past.  Elaine stated that this issue would be followed up.  Councillor Sims is taking this forward and the issue should be followed up by the planning dept.
   
   In future all developments will have to make an educational contribution as well.
   
   Pat raised the issue of three storey buildings and asked why the lower storey couldn't be underground.  The overall view is that cost makes this option difficult.
   
   Helen raised the issue of aesthetics and the need for houses to match into the local community.
   
   Chris raised the issue that with the Jones Homes site the original target was for 20 affordable houses but now only 4 will be built.
   
   SCAG raised with Elaine the issue of our letter to the planning dept raising issues about Bovis Homes and their non compliance with the planning requirements. Elaine commented that she also doesn't always get a response to letters either. However, Bovis have now agreed to tackle the outstanding items.
   
   It was agreed we will wait three months for action on Bovis homes then decide what further action to take.

2. Affordable houses.

SCAG members raised issues about the current plans for affordable housing.

3. LDF

Elaine reports there is unlikely to be progress on the LDF for a further 12 months because the government has still not given accurate figures for the target for Kirklees.

Brownfield land will supply enough land for building until 2018.  Only then will Greenfield land be used – Elaine.

4. Flooding

Elaine reported that there will be no future planning consent unless the run off water issue has been fully addressed. Elaine has also raised the issue of who would be liable if building developments caused flooding with the Council.  The Council is to investigate and report back.  The Environment Agency will now be involved in all planning applications in Kirklees.

Elaine reported that money has been allocated to clear all the local flooding trouble spots such as Baildon Dike over the coming months.

Elaine demonstrated a substitute for sandbags and the plan is to make these available at a discount on the actual cost of £149.50 a box of 20. The bags can be stored in a cupboard or garage; can easily be put in place by anyone, as they weigh no more than a pillow. They swell to produce a strong barrier when wet and can be dried for re-use.

5. Village Entry Stones.

Howard reported that all is in place for this to go ahead and locations for the stones have been agreed.  We are now in the process of getting agreement from the governors of Shelley High School. Elaine reminded SCAG that we need to submit invoices to get the money. Howard to action.

6. Parking at Shelley High School.

Should we press for double yellow lines so pupils can't park outside and restrict sight lines at the school? No decision was taken.

7. Barowstead crossing and school travel plans.

   Although there is approval for the crossing we would like to get the work moved forward. We need all travel plans in place to make this happen. The one causing the delay is the local nursery and they hope to have their plans in place by the summer holidays.  Shelley College is also slow getting their travel plans in place.
   
   We still have no progress with a lollipop lady. Elaine reported there is a large shortage of lollipop ladies in Kirklees.

8. Woodstreet traffic problems

Helen reported on progress of the working group, which is in favour of traffic calming in the form of speed plateaus a third of the way up the hill, plus something near number one Woodstreet. There is also support for a resident's only sign to try to discourage people from using it as a short cut. Elaine agreed to follow up this idea.

Helen reported that a survey of all residents is being conducted. All the people interviewed so far are in strong support except for two. The objections raised are people who can't see well may not see the plateaus and trip over them. The other objection is would this make it more difficult in winter when it is icy?

Helen reported there needs to be a gap at the side of each bump to allow rainwater to pass.

Helen is to contact Elaine to follow up when the survey is complete.

9. Notice board.

Elaine is meeting people tomorrow to follow this up.

10. Buses

Elaine announced that today she managed to get the bus to Barnsley re-instated for 6 months trial starting in July. Richard to announce this on our web site.

11. Fund raising

Plant sale and coffee morning will now to be on June 7th, Chris to send Pat the number for the Council chamber, so the room can be booked.

We need people to man the event on the morning, all committee members to state their availability at the next meeting.

Howard suggested we sell tickets in advance at £1 a time – Howard is willing to do this. We will print up 200 tickets.

By the next meeting we need to know which of us will man the stall that morning. Carol volunteered but will have her mum with her so it may limit involvement.

Chris will look into getting a banner produced saying coffee morning so we can gain publicity..


12. Date of the next meeting.

    Wednesday 21 May 7.30 at Richard's

Return to top of page

SCAG meeting Wednesday 16th April.

Apologies Susan, Elaine, Jean, Howard, Carol

Present  Wilf, Chris, Anne, Richard, Ruth, Helen, Pat, Philip

Previous meetings minutes.

It was agreed to hold over the review of the last meetings minutes and the matters arising until the next meeting and to focus the meeting on developing a clear action plan for fighting the LDF proposals.

Housing Strategy.

1. All to look at Kirklees web site covering the LDF, Richard to circulate the address for the web site. The current document offered for consultation is the Draft Supplementary Planning Document 2 covering Affordable Housing. This is the document we should all read and comment on before 15 May. There is a form on the web site we can fill in to deliver our response on line.
   
2. Each person on the committee to submit their views to Kirklees planning dept, via the mechanism stated above.  In addition to let Richard know their views so he can produce a SCAG response on behalf of us all.
   
3. Richard to produce a timetable for the full LDF consultation for all so we know what is going to happen. We can then agree what action we need to take on each section.
   
4. We should produce a document by latest first week in May to send out to our volunteers and put on the web site – bullet points covering key points in the LDF to get people's attention. We should state there are over twenty documents so we will summarise key points to all and suggest actions we would like our volunteers to take. We must make as many people as possible aware of the LDF process and get them involved in the consultation process. We need to get people to visit our web site by making sure they know there will be further updates on our site. Richard to action.
5. Richard to arrange for the Kirklees web address to be put on our web site with a message asking people to visit the site and give their views on the proposals. We should also put the questions we are raising on the site to provide guidance.
6. We should also raise all the questions we have about future housing development on our web site, in addition to sending them to all the people concerned. We should question the assumptions on which the housing targets are based – why should we believe the figures are correct given governments track records on producing accurate data?  We need to point out that drainage is not adequate, roads are not adequate, the commuting problems and impact on farming at a time when food prices are rising and because of carbon footprint more needs to be grown here. Health provision, schools, provision for pensioners. All these factors will be adversely affected by further development.
7. We need to get people involved through a combination of press publicity, a special newsletter, our web site and talking to people in our village.
8. We should make contact with CPRE to see if we can work together, or at least ask them to put a link to our web site on theirs.
9. We need a strategy of meeting up with all the other groups in the Valley to try to work on a joint strategy, eg  the windfarm group Denby Dale, SoS in Scisset and the community associations. Chris to ask our local councillors at our next meeting for contact details of any such groups.
10. Chris to send our councillors a copy of our letter about the Bovis homes development with a note saying we have had neither a response nor an acknowledgement they have received it.
11. We should ask people to become full members of SCAG and ask for a joining fee. There was some debate about the wisdom of trying to charge a fee.
12. We should produce a flier covering the key issues in bullet form with a request people  join us and visit our web site.
13. Chris to send Richard the full e mail address list for SCAG.  Richard to ask Andy how we can e-mail everyone without showing all e-mail addresses.
14. Richard to add the LDF e-mail address to all connect articles, plus our SCAG e-mail address.
15. Chris to check with the Post Office what it would cost to mail shot every house in Skelmanthorpe.
16. Chris to ask if Susan would act as membership sec so we keep our mailing list up to date.
17. Funding. The planned coffee morning has been put back so it will now be 7 June at the Council Office. Pat to talk to Jean. Richard to add this to the newsletter and web site.
18. Richard to write an article about rowdy behaviour outside the Chartist Pub.

The date of the next meeting will be agreed at our special meeting on Wednesday 23 April at 7.30 pm at Anne and Chris's home.

Return to top of page

Development by Bovis Homes Limited on the Site of the Old Allotments, Cumberworth Road, Skelmanthorpe. Application No. 2004/95019, 25th March 2008

SCAG (Skelmanthorpe Community Action Group) has requested, on several occasions, a meeting with the Planning Department to provide answers to questions that have arisen in connection with the development referred to above. In particular, our questions relate to the role of the Planning Department of KMC (Kirklees Metropolitan Council) after Planning Approval has been granted. Generally, these requests for dialogue have been unsuccessful even when the Group asked for, and was given, the support of local councillors in seeking such a meeting with representatives of the Department.

Failure to encourage such a meeting and, in the absence of any alternative forum available to the Group, a series of questions follow, to each of which the Group require definitive and detailed answers. Preceding each question are observations made by the Group which might help in providing the answers required.  

1. Confirmation of “the Council’s decision to grant permission for the development subject to compliance with the conditions specified” was dated 27 January 2005. “The conditions specified”, 14 in total, are listed in the Approval Document. Parentheses indicate that the words and phrases quoted are those that appear in the KMC documents. Several of these conditions specify that certain items ‘shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is commenced’. It became clear in October 2007, with the development approximately 60% complete and with houses on the development advertised for sale, that several of the specified conditions had not been complied with and items had not been ‘submitted to or agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority’.
   
   Question: Why was the developer allowed to continue development without sanctions when he was clearly in breach of conditions attached to the Approval?

2. Other conditions specified ‘before any part of the site is occupied’ and yet, before Christmas 2007, several of the houses were occupied and construction continued with the development, at that stage, approximately 70% complete.
   
   Question: Why was the site occupied when clearly the developer was in breach of conditions attached to the Approval?

3. We know, from exchanges with Kirklees Planning Department, that the development was ‘unauthorised’ in October 2007 and still ‘technically unauthorised’, in February 2008, over three years since Planning Permission was granted.
   
   Question: How is a developer allowed to market and sell houses on a development that is ‘unauthorised’ by the Planning Authority?

4. We are advised that responsibility for compliance with the Approval and the conditions attached remains with the developer. Over the course of this development, the Group have seen little evidence of the developer being sanctioned in any way for his failure to comply with the Planning Approval. By their very nature, conditions are attached to the Approval are deemed important matters by those granting Approval.
   
   Question: Whose responsibility is it to police and enforce matters when the developer fails to comply with those conditions, specified by KMC?

5. In this particular case, it is admitted in emails from KMC that many of the specified conditions were not complied with when the development was some 60% complete.
   
   Question: Why was no enforcement action taken against the developer for his non-compliance? 

6. It was felt, from the outset, that the obtrusive siting of three-storey properties immediately adjacent to Cumberworth Road had not been considered by either the developers or the planners. These properties do not reflect the style of any other adjacent existing properties and are totally out of style and character with others in the immediate area. Given the contours of the site, it was ultimately agreed that these would be sited in the centre of the development and at a lower level. In the event, the monstrosity that has now been built towards the centre of the site, originally to be sited at the roadside does nothing to blend in with the surrounding properties. In fact, we are aghast that planners would allow such an unsympathetic structure to be positioned where it was originally intended. It still is out of character with existing and surrounding buildings.
   
   Question: Why would a development, in the midst of existing single and two-storey properties, be allowed to include properties that are totally out of character and unsympathetic?

7. It was recognised that Traffic Calming in Cumberworth Road would be necessary in view of the traffic movements generated from the development. It was a condition of the Approval that, ‘prior to development commencing’ a scheme would be submitted and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Up to a few weeks ago, with the development almost complete, this scheme had not been agreed. It was also a condition of the Approval that, before any properties were occupied’ traffic calming measures had to be installed in Cumberworth Road.
   
   Question: Why were no sanctions taken against a developer who ignores the Planning Authority’s requirements and why is there no traffic calming measures in place even though properties have been occupied for months?

8. The Traffic Calming measures referred to above had to include an independent Safety Audit.
   
   Question: Has such an independent Safety Audit been received and accepted.  

9. ‘Prior to development commencing’, a schedule with the details of ‘construction workers parking facilities’ was to be submitted and agreed. It was a source of continuous aggravation to local residents that these vehicles were parked on Cumberworth Road immediately around the site entrance. This created a ‘funnel effect’ causing regular obstructions which was both dangerous and, eventually, unacceptable to both drivers and pedestrians.
   
   Question: Was such a schedule submitted and agreed prior to development commencing?   

10. Despite approaches to both the Bovis Site Engineer and the Planning Department, it was not until a SCAG committee representative contacted a Bovis Homes Limited director that steps were taken to correct the situation in respect of construction workers parking facilities.
    
    Question: Why did the Planning Authority ignore our requests for action and allow the developer to ‘please himself’?

11. There is a requirement for ‘wheel washing facilities within the site’ for construction traffic. Judging from the state of the roads and pavements around the site entrance since the start of groundworks such facilities were never in evidence.
    
    Question: Were there such facilities within the site and, if so, why were the roads and pavements immediately outside the site entrance so muddy?

12. Provision for public open spaces in new developments is well set out. On a site the size of this development, the public open space provision nowhere meets the requirements. As a result, it is understood that the developer is required to pay to the Council a sum of money related, in some way, to the non-provision. This money is then to be used for existing recreational facilities in the immediate vicinity.
    
    Question: Did the Council agree to this minimal public open space on this site, did the developer hand over a sum of money as suggested, what was the sum agreed and is any money that was paid ‘ring-fenced’ for the use specified?

13. The occupied properties are not in some remote corner of the site but in the centre of the development, between the site entrance and the areas currently under construction. With only one site entrance, construction vehicles and those delivering raw materials to the construction areas have no option but to travel through occupied areas.
    
    Question: Is this not bad practice and in contravention of Health and Safety legislation?

SCAG is concerned that this particular development was not policed by KMC and, consequently, the developer was permitted to ignore many of the conditions deemed important by those granting the Approval. Not only that, but non-compliance and the way the developer has been largely uncontrolled has affected, and continue to affect, many who live in the immediate vicinity of the site. Furthermore, SCAG is concerned that the situation with Bovis Homes Limited is not unique and that, if typical of the relationship that exists between the Planning Department and developers generally, this lack of policing and enforcement allows developers to do much as they please and may be symptomatic of more serious issues.

Does not the developer have a legal obligation to comply with the Approval and any conditions attached? If KMC attach conditions to a Planning Application Approval, which they go to the trouble of documenting, it is for a reason; they expect the developer to comply with the conditions. If the developer ignores the conditions, as has clearly happened here, and the developer is not sanctioned for doing so, what reason has the developer for complying with the Approval at all?

This matter has, in our view, serious implications, and with the future very much in mind, the Group look forward to your response to each of our questions in due course together with any other comments you might care to make.

Regards

Richard Graham
Secretary to Skelmanthorpe Community Action Group