Another Gypsy site in Stourport?

Remember the totally fair and unbiased public review and discussion that ended with Wyre Forest's entire allocation of Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople sites being placed on Sandy Lane Industrial Estate in Stourport?

Well hey know it's not all just Stourport planning permission has been applied for to as a change of use from agricultural land to a "Gypsy Caravan Site to create maximum 15 pitches, amenity blocks and service road." oh wait silly me it's Stourport again.

This time it's behind the new Millfields estate which is kind of interesting given the justification for nixing all the non-Stourport sites as being essentially the ghettoish/racist "they all want to stay together". I mean sure it's close-ish

Access is a joke though. From Timber Lane is a normally closed bridge and from the estate it's winding through the estate and through a short tunnel. Want to transport static caravans to the site? Not to mention that, as far as I know, the estate's roads still haven't been laid properly.

That said it's next to an exiting residential area so it makes more sense than expanding into an industrial zone, but I'm still doing some head scratching here because I can't see this site in the Baker Associates Report you know the report that we paid to have done to identify viable sites in Wyre Forest. So they didn't think it worth mentioning and yet hey look it's suitable enough to go to the trouble of applying for it.

It's been said before, but um can we have our money back please

The joke that is the Millfield Estate

So the last thing heard regarding the Millfields Estate was that each of the three builders would be doing their own work, doffing their cap at completion and handing over to the next contractor in turn. The good news is that the first builder's (Taylor Wimpey) contractor has finished and cleared off site leaving a delightful stretch of finished work on both road and pavement.

Are you waiting for the punchline? Oh good. Turns out that when the builder came to inspect and put their seal of approval on the work they stated that 60-70% of the surface used sub-standard material. So all those areas now have to be dug up again and resurfaced.

Now as none of the contractors are allowed to be on the same site at the same time (perhaps they're time travellers and we can't risk them meeting) this might set back all the other works that have been planned.

Ah but it gets more amusing. Allegedly it turns out the next builder won't start work until they've taken core samples of the road in their 'patch' which will take a week to process and they won't start that until the previous contractors have gone in case their work affects that road. Which could be considered fair if the two areas adjoined or the contractors had to use those roads... apparently they don't, and they don't.

Millfields estate repair work

As mentioned the three builders were set to repair their own areas of the Millfields estate though not at the same time as originally planned due to council interference. It does however get better (hah) in that in at least one case the work has been subdivided up into sections.

The rough situation is that Builder A does work in Section 1, Builder B then does work in Section 2 then Builder A works in Section 3.

Other than causing a huge amount of disruption in that each contractor has to deliver, remove and store equipment multiple times; the biggest joke is that the first section that is being worked on is/was the main entrance that every other contractor will have to drive through and over to reach their own section.

To emphasise they're repairing and resurfacing a road and then driving all the heavy machinery over it.

Makes you want to cry.

Millfields repair work

Tcch how did I forget to mention this. As mentioned back in March the three contractors for the Millfields estate were to be repairing, no not repairing - finishing the roads. Well I was told a little while back that after much effort from the neighbourhood association this was all to start.

Except not according to the plan. As it was three different builders they each wanted to use their own contractors, apparently this was all sorted out and all three were to start work at the same time. That is until the council apparently stepped in and told them that they couldn't all work at the same time.

Now yes they're all working on different areas, and yes normally having one set working here while another works there can cause major disruptions that wouldn't occur otherwise. Except this is a closed off estate work anywhere will cause a disruption and the areas are disparate enough that they wouldn't each be underfoot. But nope rather than have one period of problems they need to have three by order.

Of course as everything's been planned and contractors timed for the same period it's almost a case of picking straws as to who goes first and then having to rearrange the other two times, which may not be available until some time away meaning a stop-start approach to the work that just messes everyone up.

Millfields Estate boo-boo?

Another residents meeting and I'm informed that all is underway to have the roads brought up to scratch and formally adopted by the council. That's the good part.

The bad part is that there are three different builders on the site which may mean three different contractors bringing in equipment to do the work.

The next bad part is that Severn Trent Water examined a part of the area and found that they'd used 6" pipes instead of 9" pipes for drainage. So at the same time as that area is being 'fixed' it needs to be dug up to get those replaced, which means more work and more time spent.

On a final note it seems there's a small legal hiccup in the transfer of a different area. Once repaired both the roads, pavements and verges will be handed over to the council; this is fine except that this one small verge apparently is already owned by the council. The builders in question thought it was included on their site as did the council, but examination prior to hand-over shows it doesn't.

'What's the big deal?' you might ask, if it was being turned over to the council anyway that just means you don't need to do anything. Ah no possibly due to the way the deal is structured or the need for a paper trail of adoption the council needs to have the land in question registered to the builders, and will then have it re-registered back to themselves.

Now I find it important to note that this isn't some fly-by-night build with someone sticking a big shed at the bottom of the garden or a huge extension on the back of their house. This is a full housing estate off a main road with specifications to include it as part of the ephemeral Relief Road and look at the problems with it.

If this is a typical example of what we get when the council are supposedly involved in the building process, what the hell are they doing?

Millfields Estate - result?

My informant being absent for a while both he and I have just received a data burst of the latest goings-on at the Millfields Residents Association. The story so far is that of the three builders of the site two have been in discussion with the council and handed over plans and one hasn't. Action was called for and a picket of their latest building site planned. Due to excellent press release sent out by one of the members this event got picked up by Radio Five Live who invited the Chairman to an interview.

Obviously Five Live also contacted the building firm involved because not long after he received a call inviting them to a meeting provided he cancelled the interview and the forthcoming picket. Without getting into details the interview was called off, but the picket was still on schedule pending any definite action on behalf of the firm.

The meeting was apparently held recently so hopefully I'll find out what happened at some near date.

Road Worker? Park where you like.

Jim's just mentioned work going on for resurfacing somewhere near Kylemilne Way, however this is causing him and other residents of Millfields fun as the work crew are parking their equipment up the end of their new road and, as we're dealing with resurfacing, leaving lumps of tar etc. behind as they trundle up and down.

So here's the question - as none of these roads on the estate have yet to be adopted and are thus classed as private property who gave the repair crew permission to use that area as a vehicle park?

Mitton Park Residents' meeting

I'm a bit late with this report from the meeting last Tuesday. A blah report from the Conservation officer, which didn't shock, and a report on the ongoing construction of the Play Area from the design consultant, which caused ripples.

As you may recall at the last meeting there were some residents complaining about how close the allotted area was to their house, plus concerns about nearness of water etc. Well it seems they came out in force to this meeting and were vehemently opposed to its construction there.

Unfortunately they were offered a vote - yays for the current site and nays for somewhere else (i.e. using the money to enhance an already existing site not even on the estate); nays won. Fortunately the point was raised that for the vote to be effective everyone would need to be consulted and not just those present; I would also like to add that as the vote was not on the agenda it also has no force other then perhaps ensuring a place on the table at a future meeting.

At this point the meeting descended into bickering.

Now I hate to bring Tesco's back into it, but this reminds me of some of the arguments used by some of the residents of Discovery Road concerning the excess levels of traffic they'd be getting. Discovery Road was built intentionally as part of the relief road to carry large amounts of traffic, and this was well known. The fact that it hasn't been linked up yet and therefore isn't currently being used to its full potential is not an argument, the buyers of houses knew what it was and knew what it was for.

In exactly the same way the Play Area was always designated for that particular site and the fact that it wasn't there when the nearby houses were sold is neither here nor there and such arguments are null and void; simply put you should have known about it.

In my opinion the complaints about the closeness of the river, though mildly valid*, are a smokescreen for 'we don't want a play area filled with screaming kids next to our houses, just think of the property value declining'.

Sorry folks I think you'll find once the entire estate is consulted you'll be in a majority.

*As children I and my friends used to play in the 'rough', essentially a patch of scrubland, unattended and next to the Stour with no railings, bars, gates, or any adverse consequences. We were told to be careful around the river and that was all that was needed.

Mitton Park Residents' Meeting

So another Mitton Park Residents' Association Meeting last Friday with apparently a few more people attending then previously, for reasons I'll get back to.

The amusement I suppressed from mentioning in an earlier entry was to do with the play area. This has been set as to be sited behind the cottages next to the river and marsh; which may be considered hardly ideal a fact brought up by the meeting of high muck-a-mucks. One of them suggested this patch of ground at the end of Millfield Road next to the Leapgate Line.

"But that's where you want to run the by-pass through. What happens when that starts to be done?"
"Then we'll move it to the original site."

Yes folks this is the critical thinking you can expect from our leaders - build a play area at great expense in a different area in the full knowledge that at some point in the future you'll be moving it over to the originally designated site.

It seems the play-area was the main bone of contention that was being chewed on by all these extra people who all suddenly wanted to pay their dues and become members.

It seems the area had been covered with some flora deemed dangerous/hazardous so the site was cleared and a membrane put down. Now what I've been told was that someone who lives close by has used a JCB to clear their site and in the process has a) torn some of the membrane and more importantly b) knocked down some conservation order trees.

Not that anyone cares that they may have had a conservation order on them, more along the lines that now the trees are no longer there the proposed play area will become the dominant view for the houses sited next to it.

Mention was also made about how close to the Marsh it was; oo let's site it somewhere else.. any suggestions? It was also asked by the council if it required parking places, a categorical no from the Chairman as ratified by the association; although apparently some newbie couldn't get that through their thick head and kept objecting to having parking places there. Again a point to make is that this is designed as a local play area for local children (League of Gentlemen aside) so what would be the need for parking and why would anyone even ask?

Another newbie had been asking around local estate agents and has been told that the state of the roads means the properties are around £20k less then they should be. Yes if you'd attended any of the other meetings you'd know this was being worked on.

No-one seemed to know much about the apparent slide of the gardens down a slope although the interesting question was raised about who was responsible. The builder is for 5 years, except no-one knows when that started, after that though has been left in the air.

The topic of ownership/responsibility brings two further points of interest. The first regards the tipping at the end of Millfield Road 'Could we have some barriers please?' 'Well who owns the land?' Ummm. Remember this is where they wanted to put the play-area until it needed to be moved so was a doubly dumb thought.

The second point regards part of Timber Lane and the high possibility that the Highways Agency still owns the land. This would be the land now covered by houses and gardens.

So much of this would have been dealt with and cleared up if there had been a County Enforcement officer on site (as there should have been) except they were ill and as a result nothing was done and they simply 'got on with it'.

Interesting - the planning officer for Wyre Forest goes on maternity and they get in a consultant firm for the interim, County Councils Enforcement officer goes ill and... nothing. Wow I'm actually being impressed by our District Council in comparison to our County one; hardly a taxing standard though.

Mitton Park Residents' meeting

A short one now the leaflets have gone out. A meeting for the Mitton Park Resident's Association next Friday with a report from Fred about his meeting with councillors. Without spoiling things it sounded like 'fun' with one giant bombshell into the mindset of how all this works that caused me to emit one huge laugh.

I've also been told about the houses that lost the bottom half of their gardens down the (allegedly) unsupported bank - yeesh. Next thing you know they'll be finding old mine workings underneath it all.

Mitton Park/Millfields Newsletter

The first newsletter for the newly formed Mitton Park Residents' Association has been sent out.

Reproduced below in plain(ish) text

MITTON PARK RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION
NEWSLETTER NO 1 - 29TH OCTOBER 2007

Formation of Residents' Association
The Mitton Park Residents' Association was formed on Friday 12th October 2007 at a meeting of residents held at Wilden Village Hall. During the meeting a Committee was elected by the residents present at the meeting. The committee is made up of:

Chairman: Fred Roberts
8 Evergreen Way

Secretary: Julie Price-Pass
50 Evergreen Way

Treasurer: Steve Parkes
53 Evergreen Way

Others: Ron Gibson
3 Leapgate Avenue

Dermot O'Connor
4 The Dell

Aims of the Association
The aims and objectives of the Residents' Association are:

• To represent the views and best interests of residents by lobbying the Developers (Persimmon, Morris and Wimpey Homes) to complete the highways and other communal areas within the defined area to an adoptable standard and to lobby the Council to enforce the conditions of the Planning Approval and other Legal Agreements.
• To work with Authorities and Organisations for the benefit of all residents.
• If lobbying alone is unsuccessful consider taking legal action to force the issue with the Developers to ensure compliance with their legal obligations.
• To ensure that all residents are consulted and informed regularly and that all residents entitled to membership are encouraged to join.
• To encourage a sense of community.

Actions to Date
Letters have now been sent to all three of the Developers (Persimmon, Morris and Wimpey) addressed to the Group Company Secretary at their Registered Offices with a copy to the Managing Director of the local Division.

The letter highlights the Developers failure to comply with their legal obligations as set out in the property deeds and also their failure to comply with the conditions of the Planning Approval for the development. This includes the satisfactory completion and adoption of roads, footpaths, sewers, drains, play area, conservation area and public open space.

Each Developer has been asked to provide their firm proposals to demonstrate how they will comply with their contractual obligations together with a time bound plan to achieve this within 28 days of the date of the letter.

A letter has also been sent to the Head of Development Control at Wyre Forest District Council (WFDC) regarding the Council's failure to enforce the conditions attached to the Planning Approval for the development and asking them to look at taking such action in accordance with their published policies.

Details of WFDC policies with regard to planning enforcement can be accessed at www.wyreforestdc.gov.uk. Go to the A-Z of services on the home page, select 'p' and then select `planning enforcement'.

Following up on an email from the Cultural Services Manger at Wyre Forest District Council to Councillor David Millis the Association has sought clarification from the Council regarding the proposals for a play area, the provision of which is a condition of the Planning Approval for the development.

A design has been agreed between Wimpey, Wyre Forest District Council and Wickspeed, the contractor who will construct the play area. The project is currently on hold pending the resolution of a mean of access for maintenance and drainage of the site.

A copy of the layout drawing has been promised and a request has been made that residents are consulted on the proposal.

Finances
A membership subscription of £10 per household for the first year was approved by the residents present at the inaugural meeting of the Association held on 12th October. This will be used to meet the cost of stationery, postage printing room hire and independent auditing of accounts etc.

A bank account has now been set up with Lloyds TSB in the name of the Association and all subscriptions received to date have been paid into this account.

Eligibility to Join the Association
All residents (owners and tenants) of properties within the Mitton Park development including the original properties on Mill Road, from the bridge over the River Stour to the mini roundabout on Millfields Drive, are eligible to join the Association. All eligible residents are encouraged to join as collectively we are much more likely to be heard and to achieve our aims. If you live in a rented property please pass a copy of this newsletter to your landlord as they also have an interest and are eligible to join.

The subscription of £10 for the first year is per household so if more than one person in the same household registers for membership the subscription will only apply once. However, all residents living in a property aged 16 years or over are encouraged to register their names on the application form as the more members we have the stronger we can claim that our representation is.

How to Join the Association
The Residents' Association has been set up to represent your interests and take action on behalf of all residents so please support the Association by becoming a member. The Association will be unable to pursue its aims and objectives without funding through membership subscriptions.

If you would like to join the Association please complete the accompanying application form and return it along with your subscription of £10 to the Treasurer, Steve Parkes, at 53 Evergreen Way, Stourport . A receipt will be issued by the Treasurer for all subscriptions received.

Highway Adoption Process
There are contractual obligations set out in the property deeds for each individual property and conditions in the Planning Approval which require the Developers to construct the highways (roads, footpaths, drains, sewers, lighting etc) to an adoptable standard to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority and to ensure that formal adoption takes place. There is also a requirement for the Developers to maintain the highways in a satisfactory condition until such time as formal adoption by the Highway Authority takes place.

The current situation is that the Highway Authority, Worcestershire County Council, is waiting for construction drawings from each Developer for the highways and has been for some considerable time. No construction activity can take place to complete the outstanding work until such time as these drawings have been received and approved by the Council.
Once the highways have been completed to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority there will be a 12 month defects period where the Developers will be responsible for maintenance and the rectification of any defects that occur. Only on the satisfactory completion of this 12 month defects period will the Highway Authority formally adopt the highways and assume responsibility for the ongoing maintenance at public expense.

Patch Repairs
All three Developers have carried out patch repairs in recent weeks and months. Whilst this is welcome it does not go far enough and the Association is pressing for nothing less that full compliance with the contractual requirements set out in the property deeds and the conditions of the Planning Approval.

Further Actions
Further actions will be considered at future meetings of the Association which will depend on the responses received from Developers and the response from WFDC in relation to enforcement of the Planning Approval conditions.

The Association will be contacting local MP, Dr Richard Taylor, Health Concern, with a request that he takes up the issues with the Developers and Wyre Forest District Council.

If lobbying alone does not bring about the desired result the Association may need to resort to legal action to force the Developers to comply with their contractual obligations.

The possibility of funding such action through the legal protection section of residents' home insurance policies was discussed at the inaugural meeting of the Association. The Chairman confirmed that he had checked his policy and contacted his insurance company, who had advised that it appeared this type of action was covered by his insurance policy.

All residents are urged to check their own insurance policies now and speak to their insurance companies to determine whether or not their policy would provide this type of cover. If we need to resort to legal action at some time in the future it is hoped that several insurers would combine to take joint action on behalf of as many residents as possible.

Millfields meeting report

A quick second-hand report on the Millfields meeting. The councillor is still awaiting the final plans from all three builders (um so what got approved?), the play area was supposed to be sited behind the cottages that got flooded out (excellent a paddling pool too at no extra cost) and a revelation that at least one of the builders supposedly paid a bond over to the council.

So awaiting the final plans, awaiting news on the drainage that relies on having the final plans, and an investigation into 'threats' over keeping the bond if it exists and some letters being sent out to the builders.

Millfields meeting

I said I would so here it is - forward notice of the next Millfields Estate/Mitton Park meeting. As before at the Wilden Village Hall at 7pm on Friday 12th October. Leaflets have gone out hopefully to everyone.

On the agenda they have an update from Cllr Millis who hopefully has heard back from the planning enforcement team, and perhaps will have a copy of the plans and terms to which the estate should have been built.

Apparently some small work has been carried out in that a soft asphalt temporary surfacing has been put down in a stretch from the main road to the corner and the gaps between pavement and kerbs filled with the same stuff; depending on the weather I'll give it a month before it falls apart. On the down-side it appears this surface is retaining soil and providing a foothold for weeds; shouldn't get too much of a foothold on the roads, but the pavements might get a fringe.

Millfields meeting

Apparently the Millfields meeting was well attended with two IHC councillors and the mayor-elect in attendance along with around 40 residents.

Alterations from the original approved plan was discussed, and the reason for some houses not getting leaflets revealed - the councillor used the plans to estimate the number of houses and layout and found it bared little resemblance to reality.

The item I was originally asked to keep stum about was discussed, the actual deeds attached to the sold houses, which apparently not only mention a kiddies play area (non-existent), but the fact that the roads would be brought up to approval no later then six months after the last house was built.

STW also aren't happy with the drains and asked for the plans, with no reply; and the councillors have asked for the final plans, again with no reply. Breach of planning and breach of contract maybe?

A residents association is being formed, with voting for members etc which I'll give as much notice as I can for.

Millfield's Estate action?

Jim's passed me the newsletter from the Mitton Independent Health Concern councillors regarding the appalling road conditions of the estate (photos). The short description of he view from the WCC is that due to the very bad workmanship and costs it might be at least three years away from an adoptable standard that is if it ever achieves it at all. If it doesn't meet that quality it'll remain private.

So to my mind the question is was planning permission granted with the expectation that the roads would be built to adoptable standards, or was only the SRR section mentioned? Of course I've mentioned that the island on the SRR was supposed to be level with Mill Road is it? So why weren't remarks made then about the workmanship?

Anyway in the face of the apparent disinterest on the part of WFDC and WCC the IHC suggest the formation of a Residents Association and/or Neighbourhood Watch Scheme(?) Perhaps a part of that could be having a word with the emergency services and asking how they feel about attending/patrolling an entire housing estate made up of roads like this? The next is that if the roads remain private who will be expected to pay for repairs and was this possibility mentioned in the deeds of the new home owners?

So far no sign of an equivalent Conservative newsletter from the remaining two Mitton Ward councillors, but an eye is being kept out for them.