On Thursday evening approximately 150 citizens of Kedington and a small delegation from Calford Green made their way up Church Walk under a glorious sunset to fill the main hall of Kedington School for a general meeting called by Kedington Parish Council. On the agenda were three issues: Plans to sell a strip of land between Silver St and the park; Alterations to the road and pavements on Silver Street and West End Lane and a discussion of the Local Development Framework (LDF) and how to respond to it.John Cahill,Chairman of the Parish Council,opened the meeting expressing his "Surprise" and "pleasure to see so many people." After giving a brief outline of the issues to be covered, he moved the meeting to the first item of business.
John Cahill explained the location of the land to be sold, its current situation and the council's opinion that the money raised from such a sale would allow the parish council to carry out more capital projects in the village. At this juncture a "point of information" was raised by Vernon Cutler who stated that the reason the land had not originally been sold but had instead been rented to the owners of Oakdene was that this land was the only official vehicle access to the park- the current path from Silver St to the park being only officially for pedestrian use. It should at this point be mentioned that despite its allocation as a foot path the current route in to the park from Silver St is used on a regular basis by the those who tend the park to bring their vehicles on to the site. John Cahill then asked from certain knowledgeable people present whether it was a legal requirement to have vehicle access on to the park and was told that it was not a strict requirement. Further opinions were passed by members of the public as to what the path was used for and why it had moved. Councillor Gloria Double asked what would happen if there was a concert in the park and suggested that no vehicle access would restrict disabled and ambulance access to such an event.
A member of the public also asked what the proceeds of the sale would be used for. John Cahill replied that the money would be used "To fund Projects", but said that what projects specifically had not yet been decided as the value of the property land had yet to be assessed. The same member of the public then stated that the parish council's plan to sell the land "Seems badly organised".
A show of hands was called for and the proposal to sell the land voted down. The Dixons will continue to rent the land at a peppercorn rent, but presumably now live in fear of the day anyone suggests staging a concert in the park.
John Cahill started this section of the meeting by showing those gathered a map of the proposals to alter the pavements and road lay out on Silver Street from the entrance to the park right up to Church Walk. The aim of the plan was to improve pedestrian safety in the area where currently there is no footpath, a need the council believe is made more important now that the area is on the route of the primary school's "Walking Bus". The plan consisted of one path on the west side of the road (The side with the park and Church walk). The proposed path would run from where the path currently stops by the park all the way up to Church Walk requiring the narrowing of the road along the length of the path as shown in the adjacent map. This may surprise readers of Kedington News as much as it surprised your reporter as this plan was very different to the plan that we have been reporting as sourced directly from the parish council website. On asking why this was the meeting was told that the plan on the website was Plan A and that there had been more than one new plan in the mean time however no specific explanation was given as to why the plan on the parish website was not updated.Although some present were not as prepaered as they would have liked to be the meeting then examined the pros and cons of the plan. One question raised was how it was that in the earlier, now discarded plan the narrowing of the road caused by the lower part of the path resulted in the need for single lane traffic with a priority system that would have gone right across the exit of Rectory Road but the new plan did not, despite having the same path at that point. IT was then claimed that the removal of the path on the traffic island from the plan left more space but the path would on the inisial plan apeaerd to be wholy on the traffic island which still remained so without a copy of the first plan to compare with doubt remained and several attendees stated that it would be too narrow any way. It was also pointed out that the exit from Rectory road could not safely be moved back any as it was a turn already blind to any traffic coming from the bridge end of the Silver Street due to the possition of the houses on that corner.
Related Stories:
Parish Plans To Extend Path On Silver Street 17/9/9 |
Alternative suggestions were made at the meeting. The suggestion of speed bumps is not a new one to the Parish Council who debated the subject at thier last regular meeting, The council themselves are broadly in favour of bumps but believe it is not an option favoured by the County authority who would have to be persuaded to pay for it. The suggestion of a roundabout was met with broad derision and some laughter. however the suggestion that a path may be brought up on the west side of the road as far as need be to allow a zebra crossing to the existing path on the road's east side if the traffic island was totally removed did gain some support. Many other suggestions have been bought to the attention of KedingtonNews.co.uk since the meeting and we do plan an article examining them in the near future.
When finally a vote was called on the issue three options were put before the meeting. The first option was to go ahead with the proposed plan, This received 20 votes. The second option was for those who were against any kind of alteration to Silver Street, this received 37 votes. The third option was for those who wished to reject the current plan but would like to see another plan drawn up for consideration. No count was made for this option because the vote for this option was so overwhelmingly large as to be very obviously the winner and much larger than both the other two options put together.
In the third part of the meeting John Cahill embarked upon the unenviable task of trying to explain to the meeting the important details in the Local Development Framework, the important details not in the Local Development Process and the Kafkaesque process by which one can comment on it.The first order of concern was the proposed expansion of Haverhill in the direction of Kedington. The plan proposes that 2500 homes will be build in the area to the North and East of the town. This is the area between Haverhill and Kedington. The proposed LDF states that it is a policy to "Maintain the identity and segregation of Kedington and Little Wratting" and proposes a "Buffer Zone" but only as a concept with no fixed line where Haverhill must stop. The lack of a "Line in the mud" has been one of the main concerns over the proposed LDF, however Mr Cahill was able to reveal to the meeting the results of an exploratory walk across the field with a member of the Haverhill planning department; a map with a proposed limit to Haverhill's eastward expansion. The proposed line would mean it would be very unlikely that any of the Haverhill expansion would be visible from Kedington. This is concidered by many to be a minimum standard for such a line however a couple from Calford Green expressed concern that building on the line would be visible from there. It should be noted that when Mr Cahill kindly sent KedingtonNews.co.uk the copy of the map that you see to the right he stated that it was subject to adjustment to take the concerns of Calford Green residents in to consideration.
Related Stories:
LDF - "A Step Back." 22/3/11 |
Mr Cahill then moved on to the subject of Building within the area of Kedington itself. The details of plans for building have been covered in other articles on this site and you will find links to those in the information boxes on this page.
Many at the meeting voiced opinions that Kedington would not benefit from any further building. A few suggested that some building would be acceptable but the location was important. The almost seeming impossibility of expanding certain already congested roads was given as a particular reason why development on the East side of the river would be unfeasable. Concern was also raised about all building works with regard to water run off into the river and an increased risk of flooding caused by the concreting over of large areas reducing absorption into the soil. Particular concern on this subject was voiced about the Proposed site next to church walk which has a section of river down one side. It was also pointed out that if climate change predictions are right there is a strong possibility events of heavy rain could grow more common leading to an even higher risk of flooding.
Councillor Gloria Double raised the issue of sewerage claiming that a series of leaks and overflows coupled with other evidence she had seen ,led her to belive that Kedington's sewerage system was already at or beyond functioning capacity and that it was essentual that the system was upgraded before any further building was allowed.
Although most attending the meeting were genrally against development particually of the section near church walk there were were a few who spoke in favor of limited building and one who spoke at length on the benifits of the village growing and hence atracting more status and services.
Gloria Double also made a supprise anouncement reguarding the Stourmead Sheltered Accomodation, stating that the local NHS trust had decided to close Stourmead and the houses there, being unsuitable for normal habitation they were to be buldozzed and the site would then be suitable for further development and that the NHS trust would be willing to work with StEdmundsbury Borough council to that end and have done something similar before in Ipswich with great success. Mrs Double then went on to propose that this land would be the most suitable in the village for development and that it should be given consideration as an alternative to other proposals since she belived some building in the village was inevitable.
At this point in the meeting John Cahill moved onto how the people of Kedington could have thier voices heard by the LDF Consultation. Initially he covered the methods by which people could respond directly to the writers of the LDF. This can be done by filling out the correct forms found on the St Edmundsbury Borough Council Links directly to the page in question do not work so on the front page find the "Local Development Framework consultations" section, on that page you can submit a response via the link marked "online consultation system". Before you do this you will need to read the LDF pages referring to the parts of the plan you wish to comment on. These can be found at the Village Library who are now quite fammiliar with where to look. There are also forms found on the site that you can print out and fill in the link for which is in the same paragrapgh as the online response form.
Throughout the meeting various people had expressed the Kafkaesque complexity of the response system that is seemingly designed to discourage anyone from responding. Only one person reported having managed to successfully submit a response and they later found their response to have been misquoted in the record of responses. Fortunately the parish council have found a way to make life easier. They have created two forms residents of Kedington can fill in and submit to the parish council by leaving them in the parish councils box at Kedington Post Office. These forms were given out on the night however they still can be obtained at the Post Office.
With that the meeting dispersed.
Article by M.P.Upton - 27/9/9
If you have news of interest to Kedington or a response or further information on existing articles please contact News@KedingtonNews.co.uk