|
Cane Hill Proposed Development Of
The Medium Secure Unit
Last November an Extraordinary Council Meeting
regarding the proposed M.S.U. development, was held at the request
of Council members, to consider the 1,081 questions submitted
by the public which had not been answered. The Mayor directed
that the questions be sorted into categories and 51 individual
questions be answered. The Mayor disallowed any prior discussion
of the Planning Application as this might lead to a Judicial
Review. It was considered that the proper place for such discussions
would be at the Planning & Traffic Control Committee Meeting
to be held on 7th December 2000. Admission by the public to this
meeting was to be by ticket only and the tickets were strictly
limited due to space. Those unable to get tickets for the public
gallery, were allowed into the Mayor's Parlour (again by ticket
only) where the proceedings were relaid over loudspeakers. The
speakers were asked to use the microphones, but in the gallery,
I found it difficult to hear all the proceedings. There was a
large police presence and people without tickets. The only members
of the public allowed to speak against the proposed development
were Mr C Hancock of Coulsdon Forum, who represented various
organisations, including:
The Council for the Protection of Rural England
The London Green Belt Council
The Croydon Society
Chipstead Resident's' Association
Coulsdon Green Belt Association
CACHE - Campaign Against Cane Hill Expansion
Pauline Payne Mr Hanoock were allowed to speak
in order to support their objections. A presentation with slides
was given, including various comprehensive maps of the M.S.U.
area, with three proposed options. However, there were three
badger setts in the immediate building area and other disused
setts, some under trees. A number of trees would need to be felled
in the building area, but some were in poor condition. A question
was asked about the security fencing around the proposed unit,
but the applicants considered the design of the buildings would
provide sufficient security. Although an actual plan of the buildings
was not available. There was no mention of the previously proposed
tennis courts or open air swimming pool.
The proposed unit would be increased from
25 beds to 120 beds (although 140 beds would be available so
that patients could be moved into different rooms as their rehabilitation
progressed). The enlarged site of the M.S.U., we were told, would
be seven times larger than the present one. The majority of the
patients would have a criminal record and fears by the public
of further crime when the patients were released into the town
were high on the list of objections to the development. Councillors
said that there were brown field sites available to the N.H.S.
Trust, which could be used instead of Green Belt land and that
the buildings would spoil the open character of the area. These
environmental considerations and increased traffic were sufficient
reasons to turn down the application. Traffic to the enlarged
site, would increase from the current 140 vehicle movements a
day, to about 720. This would be unacceptable in Portnalls road,
which was the proposed access road. Portnalls Road is a narrow
residential country lane and not a good exit for patients to
use, as it was far from the town centre and shops. Also the site
was too far from the patients' homes for family visits. Besides
which there was no direct public transport between Lambeth and
Coulsdon.
The clinical team would continue to be based
in Lambeth and travel to Coulsdon as necessary. It was pointed
out that other M.S.U. sites were being closed and some sold off.
The proposed development at Cane Hill was said to be the "least
worse option"', but the meeting was reminded that the Council
is required to preserve the Green Belt and that the open character
of the land must be maintained. Mr. Ottoway gave a short, but
concise speech against building in the Green Belt and concluded
by saying that the application should have been called in a long
time ago.
Finally, when the Chair of the meeting called
for a vote, eleven members voted against the Planning Application.
Briefly, the reasons for turning down the
application were: Crime And Fear Of Crime is unacceptable and
detrimental to the residential amenities. Note: "It is established
through case law that such fear can constitute a material planning
consideration" and "even if the level of public concern
about the use is not supported by evidence of the existing use
it can still be relied upon as a reason for refusal".
Size, and likely layout of development...
which would "give rise to harm to the open character and
appearance of Metropolitan Green Belt and harm the nature conservation
area.
Badgers, Contrary to badger welfare and to policies in the Council's
U.D.P.
Jean Richards
|