12/00218/FUL - Armscroft Park PDF 393 KB - Democracy ...

▪ Flood levels downstream of the improvement reach will be unaffected by the
proposals.
4.5 The Landscape Architect generally supports the scheme but recommended
that a surfaced path should be provided between the existing and new
footbridges to the north of the park. It was furthermore noted that care should
be taken not to allow overlooking of gardens from the mounded areas,
although it was considered that this had been taken into account as the new
contours tie in with the existing.
4.6 The Environmental Health Protection Service Manager has raised no
objections.
5.0 PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Members may be aware that two public consultation evenings were held
about the proposals prior to the application being submitted.
5.2 112 properties were notified directly of the application. This includes
neighbours to the site and people who submitted written comments at the
earlier public presentation evenings. Ward Councillors for Elmbridge and for
Kingsholm and Wotton were also notified. Two site notices were posted and a
press notice was published. The Press Notice consultation period expires on
the 8 th June 2012. Three representations have been received at the time of
writing.
5.3 Two representations have been received from one resident. The first may be
summarised as follows:
▪ Part of the Project Brief for the supporting Technical Note is not addressed
and the application should not be determined without it;
▪ It is difficult to accept that the statements in the Flood Risk Assessment
about the Wotton Brook flooding adequately describe the causes of the 2007
floods. If they cannot properly investigate the cause then how can they devise
the solution? Please find out where the palisade fencing is that is noted to
have been removed, and why the main contributors (such as Network Rail,
the EA and City Council) are not mentioned;
▪ The submitted documents are confusing because of the variety of names
given to structures. A map was attached to seek to clarify this;
▪ Disappointed and frustrated that the explanation and material provided at the
consultation evenings prior to the application (a video of the floods including a
tree on Network Rail land that caused a blockage when various car parts,
tyres and packaging materials from upstream built up against it) has not been
used advantageously.
(I sent comments in respond seeking to address the points).
The second representation may be summarised as follows:
▪ Despite the response I am not much further forward;
▪ It is strange that LxB would set a Project Brief including a number of tasks
and then accept a Technical Note that omits one of them;
PT