Response from Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual)
1. Mr. Tom Jackson (Individual) : 10 Oct 2012 11:09:00
A typed or handwritten document was submitted. This has been scanned and can be downloaded below:
Please add your response below: (Limit 3000 words)
I make yet another submission, although I fear it will be ignored like all the others.
Can someone please explain how R156 is classified Flood zone 2,and flood every time it rains, but if we apply the principles of your ''The exception test'' should be Rated Zone 3a at least, (not recomended for developement) yet R126 floods worse and R242 and R690Ulv can flood even worse still and neither of these are Flood Zone classified, so why do you keep ignoring the fact. UU were not even aware that these other fields flooded until they were shown some Photos, these photos have been forwarded to yourselves many times with no response, please tell me why?
Mr Hudson stated Attenuation systems will be needed, bur no amount of Grey water systems, Attenuation or Hydrobreak systems can cope especially when the majority of the Developement will be hard surfaces that collect water which will still end up down North Lonsdale Road and that already floods, ask the residents that had to be re housed whilst their homes were flooded.
Can you also explain the Brown field / Versatile agricultural Land principle to me, all the land referenced above come into the ''Versatile Agricultural Land'' which according to your stategy should be the last grade of land to be considered (a last resort), and according to your proposals it is mostly Versatile agricultural Land that you are proposing for Developement, surely this is land needed to sustain our future's, Where is this large % of Brown field developement Land that you need to maintain your percentages. It started life that you needed 50% Brownfield developement, this quickly changed to 28% (I
believe) but you are still way short of the mark and you still push for the Versatile agricultural Land to be Developed, it is so wrong.
The NPPF appears to support Large Scale Developement, but the areas referenced above do not have the Infrastructure, Drains nor services to cope with this Mass Developement.
The question of sustainable seems to be a topic Developers mention regularily, which is presently one of the modern ''buzz'' words people use to try and impress Planners, but that can not be determined now and will only be determined by the proposals of the developer at any future planning application, at this moment any talk of sustainability is merely a Red herring.
I also point out again that the meeting minutes from the Coronation Hall Public Meeting are NOT a true reflection of the meeting, a lot more was said and not by Mr Hudson.
There has been much discussion , meetings, paperwork and further consultations, but you still havent listned to the public and have seriously deviated from your own core stratergy. I suggest the Basics of the Proposals are seriously flawed and need a complete re think.
Further to my response of yesterday, please find attached photos taken this morning of some of your areas not referenced as likely to flood, not recognised on your Flood Zone Scale, these photos are taken some time after any rain had fallen. The photos are referenced with their Field nos, I have not included any photos of R 690 due to time restraints. (I had to get to work)
This furter rienforces the Fact that you people have not done enough productive reserch.
[See attached photographs]
