Letter: Corrections over Elms letters

Your letters
Your letters

I would like to correct and advise Ian Pearse and Sandra Davidson on statements they made in relation to The Elms application in the Gazette last week.

Mr Pearce is completely wrong when he refers to an application for 367 houses. It is of course for 37 houses. Mind you if we were to submit an application on the densities normally submitted on Town centre sites it would likely to be for even more than 367 dwellings.

He refers to the traffic chaos but has patently not read the comments of the County Council who advise on such matters who confirm that subject to minor improvements that will be paid for by the applicant that they have no objection.

There will also be put in place a traffic management scheme to ensure construction traffic uses the best routes in and out.

He refers to the huge amount of research carried out by the protestors but of course that research was only going to arrive at one conclusion .

I would refer Mr Pearce and Ms Davison to the independent research carried out by the Town Council’s independent professional advisors that concluded in a lengthy document that subject to some minor points of clarification that we met all of the criteria laid down in the Neighbourhood Plan.

The District Council’s Officers have concluded the same and I would urge open minded people to read those two reports before arriving at a conclusion.

It seems like deja vu to also have to point out that the Neighbourhood Plan was approved by a substantial majority and recently that Plan was endorsed by the full Town Council

Turning to Ms Davison’s comments I would take issue with her key points. If conservation was only about preserving we would never do anything in conservation areas and they would be preserved in aspic. This part of the conservation area is private land and not open to anyone and it would appear that Ms Davison or read any of the extensive background information or she would be well aware with her 40 years in conservation that

The estate is not an Edwardian one which is for architecture built between 1901-1914. This house pre-dates that by some 70 years.

However I would like to endorse one of Ms Davison’s suggestions of a new Park and were she to look at the submitted plans it would be evident that a New Park forms a central part of our proposals.

The House however will remain as a fine Family home in its own grounds of some 1.5 acres and still command views of the new Park.It would in our opinion be a pity for it to have all of the paraphernalia of a café et al in a Conservation area.

Simon Vickers

Rectory Homes