 |
Stretton-under-Fosse Parish Council
Application for change of use of land in Smeaton Lane Stretton under Fosse to a private gypsy caravan site. (Please scroll down)
Brinklow Fire Station - Letter sent by the Parish Council
This Council does not agree with the proposal to close Brinklow Fire Station.
The basis of the proposal seems to be a review of current stations, their “turnout areas” and calls attended justifies a reduction from 19 to 12 stations.
This Council cannot address the proposals to close any of the other six stations but the afternoon of the 24th September 2009 surely demonstrates the danger inherent in closing Brinklow Station.
The first call was at 14.50 when one of the Rugby engines was sent to a major fire at a Community centre in Leamington Spa to assist, it is presumed, engines from the Leamington Station.
At 16.15 the second call resulted in the second Rugby engine and the engine manned by Retained Firefighters from Brinklow being sent to a vehicle collision at Butlers Leap in Rugby where people were trapped in vehicles, requiring a two engine response.
At 16.30 an emergency call resulted in the Brinklow engine having to pack up their equipment and move from Butlers Leap to what had begun as a small rubbish fire turning into a fire which engulfed a shed with acetylene cylinders inside and then the house itself. It took the Brinklow engine 9 minutes to travel the mile to the cottages off the Newbold Road, because of the rush hour traffic (this is an urban area with apparently a 10 minute response time). The first engine at the scene was from Lutterworth in Leicestershire and there was a problem with the water supply. The Brinklow engine then arrived and further back-up was required resulting finally in crews from Rugby, on finishing the vehicle collision, Daventry in Northamptonshire, Binley in West Midlands, Coleshill and Stratford attending.
Warwickshire has a “knock for knock” agreement with the adjoining County Brigades such as Leicestershire and Northamptonshire but not with West Midlands.
Then over the weekend of the 9th to11th October the Brinklow engine was called out on seven occasions when the Rugby engines were out attending incidents or a two engine response was needed. These included on the 9th two vehicle collisions, one at Cloudesley Bush on the Fosse Way and the other at Coombe Fields; on the 10th a house fire at Lutterworth (in sheltered accommodation), a bonfire on the canal side in Rugby (which turned out to be a false alarm by member of the public having seen what was thought to be a property on fire) and on the 11th the rescue of a cow from the Oxford Canal near a bridge at Hillmorton.
This, we acknowledge, selective approach nonetheless demonstrates another factor: road traffic collisions are an unfortunate “growth industry”, the area between Coventry and Rugby showing the highest number of serious and fatal accidents. It is noted that, linked to a fifth watch system, it is proposed that there be a Road Traffic Collision unit to be deployed instead of traditional fire engines to “busy roads and motorways linked to the risk profile” with the unit being apparently in the south of the county. This Council believes that the Rugby area engines are frequently called out to incidents on the M6 motorway which traverses this area. Is this proposal an improvement in the service?
No mention has been made of a fundamental point, that Brinklow provides a Third engine, or we could say First Reserve, to Rugby so to an extent it is on Stand By and is actually called out if both the Rugby engines are attending incidents or are involved in training or exercises. If there are persons trapped in a house fire reported in Rugby, three engines have to attend and Brinklow is called out again. As a number of the Brinklow retained firefighters work in Rugby they know the town well.
If this proposal comes to fruition, it is understood that instead of Brinklow providing the Stand By service, this will come from an engine from Leamington Spa or Nuneaton actually travelling to Rugby to perform that duty. What account has been taken of the monetary cost involved and equally its effect on the environment bearing in mind “as every aspect of the work of the County Council impacts on the environment to a greater or lesser extent we have a duty to ensure that we minimise the negative effects of our own activity whilst at the same time promoting environmental awareness and good practice – Annual Report Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2007/2008.” We believe the answer may be none.
The other aspect which causes this Council concern is the nature of the Brinklow Station Ground, the essentially rural area including the villages of Brinklow, Stretton under Fosse, Monks Kirby, Pailton, Harborough Magna, Easenhall, Wolston, Brandon and Bretford, Church Lawford and Kings Newnham and the urban area Binley Woods and the surrounding Green Belt mainly farm land but with many small settlements (Smeaton Lane in Stretton under Fosse being a prime example).
This is an area including narrow lanes, properties (including businesses) in isolated places and in many of the villages properties not easy to find. Navigation by Sat-Nav using a post-code does not work, for example in this village there are principally two postcodes CV23 OPE and CV23 OPF and there is no logic as some properties on one side of the Main Street have OPE with others enjoying OPF and the position repeats itself on the other side. In common with a number of villages in the area, in Stretton there are a number of houses not on the main street, but in this village the same postcodes are reflected.
The retained firefighters at Brinklow know the area very well and this local knowledge enables the engine to respond very quickly to the somewhat isolated rural properties. It is accepted that engines from Rugby may be able to do this but the problem we foresee for the future is the proposal that a Regional Control Centre is established in Wolverhampton and this Council is aware of problems caused to the Ambulance Service when a similar regional control was set up but the essential difference is the larger number of Ambulances compared to the number of Fire Engines available in the area.
It is apparently believed that the reduction to a 12 station response model linked to a flexible system of duty will release resources, we assume primarily human, to provide a fifth watch system and the establishment particularly of Community Fire Safety Units. However the number of engines is astonishingly to be reduced which surely must mean that more reliance will have to be made on engines from neighbouring County Brigades: the nearest is Binley in Coventry, the busiest station for fire calls in Coventry with the two engine availability there being reduced to one between 22.00 and 10.00 the next morning. It is difficult to see how this will not result in a heightened risk to people’s lives let alone property. And for the future no account seems to have been taken of the plans to build some 6000 houses on the former Hillmorton Radio Station Site, in the Rugby area.
Improvement Plan Step 2 sets out False Alarm Calls as a problem area stating that “on average 30% of calls are false alarms”. It is appreciated that the intention is to reduce attendance by blue light condition responses at the number of automatic false alarm calls, caused by mechanical or electrical malfunction (and with the proviso that this needs to be coupled with identifying vulnerable premises, eg. old person’s homes of which there are some in the Brinklow area). This Council sees difficulty in the suggestion that this will release firefighters from their major role for, inter alia, Community Fire Safety activity but will also provide resources for the Small Fires Unit to be based in Nuneaton to cover Nuneaton and Bedworth, the only areas apparently where this is a real problem.
It does not appear to be a particular issue for Brinklow as there has been a reduction from 50 such calls in 2006/2007 to 4 in 2007/2008 and then 2 in 2008/2009.
Improvement Plan Step 3 recommends an increase in Home Fire Safety Checks to fit smoke detector devices, which requires the use of operational firefighters, and we assume under the Community Fire Safety umbrella this Council would support that activity if it did not take firefighters away from their principal role.
Then we have Improvement Plan Step 5, objective to reduce sickness absence and improve health and fitness.
What this Council queries is why cannot Improvement Plan Steps 2, 3 and 5 be tried and implemented by stages if it is not possible to fully implement with the present resources (although we cannot see how this can apply to sickness management which does not concern operational staff at Fire Stations like Brinklow and could surely be implemented immediately) before considering the closure of any of the seven stations?
The cost of funding Brinklow Fire Station is apparently in the region of £75,000 and it is suggested that operational response from Rugby Fire Station will enable that sum to be “freed up” but has it not been considered that not infrequently engines and crews from neighbouring Counties have to be called in (and not just for major incidents like the serious warehouse fire at Atherstone on Stour). As Binley in Coventry, itself a very busy station in the West Midlands, abuts the area covered by the Brinklow Station, Binley’s help will be called for and for that service the Warwickshire Service has to pay. Is that cost so much less than the cost of maintaining Brinklow that with all the other points made, the closure of Brinklow is justified? This Council thinks not.
Parish Council's letter to Rugby Borough Council Planning Dept., sent 5th October 2009 re: private Gypsy Caravan Site
Land at Smeaton Lane, Stretton under Fosse – R09/0826/PLN
This Council objects to this change of use of land within the Green Belt.
The Stretton under Fosse Parish Plan is to be used by the Borough Council as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications from 31st March 2008.
In the initial survey of residents undertaken in connection with the proposed Plan, environmental issues of most concern included protection of the greenbelt. This is reflected in the Parish Plan Action Plan for Green Belt preservation in the following terms: (the Parish Council will) “Support the major role this has played in controlling the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment by the usage of Local Plan policies for the Environment, Economic Development and Housing” and is given high priority in the Plan.
Policy H13 in the July 2006 Local Plan in the Housing Section declares that proposed Gypsy sites are to be outside the Green Belt which this site is not.
In completing the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Consultation in August 2009 question GTQ1 was answered No as we were not sure this would reduce unauthorised sites, as this site currently is. Question GTQ2 we answered Yes as no other Option seemed to be available. The Council selected Option 2 as this it was considered might protect the Green Belt.
This Council also took account of the Core Strategy Options Paper of Rugby Borough Council of September 2008 and noted that the proposed broad locations suitable for Gypsy and Traveller sites did not include any part of the parish of Stretton under Fosse. Locations proposed should be within 1,000 metres from Rugby, Coventry, Nuneaton and Hinckley and designated Main Rural Settlements within the Rugby Borough: the site in Smeaton Lane is about 1200 metres from the edge of Brinklow, a Main Rural Settlement.
Gypsy Sites are included in the Housing Section of the Local Plan but the area within the village boundary is that which is subject to the Local Needs Settlement criteria; Smeaton Lane is outside the village boundary and remains subject to the Green Belt policies within that Plan which suggests these as a matter of policy should be more onerous than those required to satisfy the Local Needs criteria .
In Section 2 of the Design and Access Statement it is stated that Local Plan Policy H13 is out of date because Circular 1/94 and PPG3 have been replaced. As this Council understands the position however Circular 1/94 is replaced by Circular 01/2006 and surely paragraphs 48 and 49 in particular of that Circular should be applied. Likewise PPG3 has been replaced by PPS3 and paragraph 30 is applicable, we feel. In particular “Rural exception sites should only be used for affordable housing in perpetuity. A Rural Exception site policy should seek to address the needs of the local community by accommodating households who are either current residents or have an existing family or employment connection, whilst also ensuring that rural areas continue to develop as sustainable, mixed, inclusive communities.” The Applicants do not come near to meeting this criterion.
If the site was in fact used for storage of Heavy Plant in so far as this Council is concerned this use seems to be in conflict with our understanding of the authorised use, as agricultural land.
It is noted that the Applicants have given an address as c/o 8 Ryderway Lutterworth in Leicestershire. Whilst this appears to be an ordinary residential property, there is no suggestion that the family is homeless and it is therefore difficult to understand why at page 6 item (vi) reference is made to “Human Rights consideration.”
This application is for 2 vans and we wonder if this is in fact sufficient for the extended family in the long term. Further at page 2 it is stated “they (the Applicants) have travelled nomadically to make a living all their lives.” which suggests two things, that at some stage they will wish to move off this site, described at paragraph 4.3 page 5, to go to somewhere else and that some use of the site will involve some commercial use to enable them to earn an income.
Also it is noted that at section 13 it is stated that the site is not within 20 metres of a watercourse yet there is a stream which runs in front of the properties (Fog Cottages and Station House) on the other side of Smeaton Lane, less than 20 metres from the southern boundary of the site and in fact about 12 metres from the southern boundary of the site. Further at section 16 it is stated there are no trees or hedges on the site or adjacent land whilst in fact there are both in the site boundaries and on adjacent land.
This Council is particularly concerned as to services to this site having regard to the answer to question 12 Foul Sewage. There is available in Smeaton Lane mains water and electricity. There is no mains gas and heating of houses is therefore by propane gas or oil or electricity. There is, so far as this Council is aware, no mains sewer service available in Smeaton Lane. Certainly for Station House and the four Fog Cottages there is a private drainage system the actual facility being behind Station House itself and for Horseshoe Cottage, on the same side of Smeaton Lane as this site, has a Septic Tank in the curtilage of the cottage. “Portable Toilets” require emptying and it would be a serious concern in any area, not least a Green Belt area, that this seems to be envisaged as the long term solution, no septic tank nor cess pit being planned.
Finally it is this Council’s view that this proposed change of use will result in a loss of privacy for the residents in Smeaton Lane itself, the generation of additional vehicle traffic in Smeaton Lane (which is a true lane albeit used as a commuter run) and will have an adverse impact on the rural landscape which if permitted will starve the population of its heritage.
Gypsies – Local concerns, also sent to Rugby Borough Council PLanning Dept., 5th October 2009
Over 30 residents attended the meeting of the Parish council held on the 28th September 2009 to discuss the Application for change of use of the land in Smeaton Lane, Stretton under Fosse. Of those attending all were opposed to this proposal save one resident.
A number of issues were raised not all of which are reflected in the response of the Parish Council itself.
Some residents of Smeaton Lane itself said that following complaints over 10 years ago the use of the site for storage of heavy machinery was ended following action, and it is presumed that was by the Local Planning Authority?
It was felt that this long discontinued previous use should not be used to justify the proposed development in any way.
Others wanted to know if planning consent for this use for storage of plant, including the construction of hard standing, was ever granted by the Local Planning Authority.
Having regard to the application which refers to three trade vans and one car, this suggested to residents commercial activity and they were worried this would generate transport noise problems which had been a factor in the use of the site some 10 years or more ago by heavy plant.
General concern was expressed about sanitation and what was being done or was to be done in respect of emptying the chemical toilet (Portaloo) on site.
Further residents wanted to know what was happening about water supply now and of more importance in the future if consent were to be granted.
Residents also wanted to know if the new access to the site which had been created seemingly totally without planning consent had been agreed with the Highways Authority because it seemed to residents that visibility was extremely restricted, Smeaton Lane itself being a narrow and winding lane with poor visibility at certain points anyway.
There seemed to be some doubt as to the nature of the “entrance” at the further end of the site which had been blocked off in part by a fence. Residents thought it was just an opening in the hedge with no gate and queried if that access had ever been agreed with the Highways Authority.
As to the proposed fence on the Western end of the site it was considered that this was out of character with the notion of the Green Belt and so was the fence alongside Smeaton Lane itself and queried whether or not planning consent for that fence should have been sought.
STRETTON-under-FOSSE PARISH COUNCIL
The Parish Council meets every 6 weeks in the Village Hall. Notices with the dates and times of meetings are displayed on the Council's noticeboard next to the bus stop in Main Street as well as on this site. Residents are welcomed to attend meetings and a time for questions is set aside at the start of each meeting at 7.15 pm.
Gerald Baxter (Chair) 832479 mr.mrsb@tesco.net
David Collins 833390 collins@emailcollins.co.uk
Sue Hartshorn sue@hartshorn10.fsnet.co.uk
Terry Smith tsmith2607@aol.com
Eric Vallance eric.vallance@ntlbusiness.com
Janet Hall (Clerk) 832887 sufclerk@btinternet.com
The Housing Needs Survey report has been published (August 2007) and can be read here. This was a survey commissioned by the parish council in partnership with Warwickshire Rural Community Council and Warwickshire Rural Housing Association. The Parish Plan is completed and can be read here.
Read the latest Parish Council minutes
Latest
LOCAL BUS TIMETABLE - CLICK HERE FOR TIMES
Would you like to be contacted whenever the website is updated with new items? If so, please let us know through info@sufvillage.co.uk
2010 Village Hall events here.
The Freedom of Information Act model scheme adopted by Stretton under Fosse Parish Council can be read here
Up to date Parish Council Minutes and AGM 2010 Minutes can now be read here
Up to date Minutes of the Village Hall Committee can be read here.
Walk the local footpaths - Read more