CirencesterScene Magazine -Establishing Local Connections


Reality Dawns on DecisionMakersOver BathurstDevelopmentatChesterton?


Save Our Cirencester


On Tuesday 26th September CDC held a full council meeting to discuss the Bathurst Devel- opment. After avery long meeting, which was well attended by the public, Cllr Joe Harris pro- posed amotion to deferthe application forat least 3 months. The motion wascarried by 17 to 13 votes.


Whydid councillorsdelaythe determination of this application? Theysaid itwas because of problems associated with the bus-gate, which allows only bus- es to travel between the East and West parts of the development- arestriction caused by the existence of aScheduled AncientMonumentand alistedbuild- ing,The Cranhams, in close proximity to each other.


Howeverthe reality is that a majority of the councillors had deep concerns over the plan


to build 2,350 houses at Chesterton. As the day progressed they began to realise whateveryone in Cirencesteralready knows: thatthe number of houses planned at South Chesterton is fartoo high and in the wrong place. They became aware ofthe huge number of problems and the illusory so-called ‘benefits’. The plain fact is that by voting the way they did and using ‘bus gate’ asanexcuse, theyare starting to subvert their ownlocal plan, of which the Chesterton develop- ment isthe main cornerstone.


Consultation and communication on the proposals have been so ineffective that not even councillors, nev- er mind the public, had any opportunity to scrutinise it. All were takenby surprise when, at the eleventh hour,itemergedthat people living on the proposed Chesterton sitewill have to paya‘service charge’for the maintenance of the green spaces. So already, one reality of this“legacy site” is apparent. In additionto paying their council taxall residents, includingthose in social housing, will have to paya service charge for aprivate organisation to maintain green spaces. This


Disclaimer: Whilstwe takeevery care to ensure thatthe data in this publication is accurate, neither the publisher nor its editorial contributors


canacceptand hereby disclaim anyliability to any party to loss or damage caused by errorsor omissions resulting from negligence, accidentor any other cause. Cirencester Scene does not officially endorse any advertising material included within thispublication, nor does it necessarily endorse the views expressed by any contributors, whose opinions are their own. All rights reserved. No part of this publication including artwork &editorial produced by the magazine team, may be reproduced, storedinany retrieval system, or transmitted in any form—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise—without express prior permission of the publishers of Cirencester Scene Magazine. Cotswold Sparrow Publishing Ltd.Directors JP Federlein andEABurgess. Registered No07204328


8 Please tell our advertisers you saw them in the Cirencester Scene Magazine came as acomplete shock to local councillors.


It slowly dawned on councillorsjusthow manyprob- lems and unanswered questions there are with the Bathurst application, and this awokethemto the flaws in their ownLocal Plan – aplan thatwas hatched be- hind closed doors, but which is nowcoming home to roost.


We recognise thatsome people and councillorsfind favour with this plan. Cllr Sue Coakley, councillor for Lechlade, wantedtoapprove the application, as per the officers’ recommendation. She warned thatthe council’s reputation wasatstake if theydid not ap- prove the application, as the strategic site isaninte- gral part of their Local Plan. She paid tributetothe very professional presentation fromthe officers. If this wassuch aprofessional presentation, why did itleave so manyunanswered questions in the minds of the majority of the councillors?


SOC’s viewisthatthe councillors should now ‘stand back’ and reflecton what they have heard, then suggest areduced development and requestthatthe Local Plan be modified to reflect that change. The result -housing tar- gets would still be met, the reputation of the council intact, and Cirencesterwould remain a special town foreveryone to liveand work in.


However ifwe are not careful acombination of greed, manyunresolved issues, and apossible hurried meet- ing before Christmas to approve the application, will mean that2017 wasthe year Cirencester was irrevo- cably changed for the worse.


saveourcirencester@outlook.com twitter.com/SaveCirencester www.facebook.com/Save-Our-Cirencester saveourcirencester.wordpress.com/


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48