| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
veryangry
New Member
United Kingdom
5 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 13:10:25
|
I can not understand how HGV's are being allowed to come onto BG to service the new school build project.
The HGV's can cause damage to the roads which are not being maintained by the WSCC. Have the residents given permission???
The HGV's are causing residents to get angry as vehicles are left runing outside of residenatil dwellings causing Noise, Vibrations, and air pollution. Some of these HGV's are arriving nearly 1 hour before the agreed site opening hours.
|
very angry |
|
|
Commuter
Senior Member
United Kingdom
166 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 16:13:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by veryangry
I can not understand how HGV's are being allowed to come onto BG to service the new school build project.
The HGV's can cause damage to the roads which are not being maintained by the WSCC. Have the residents given permission???
The HGV's are causing residents to get angry as vehicles are left runing outside of residenatil dwellings causing Noise, Vibrations, and air pollution. Some of these HGV's are arriving nearly 1 hour before the agreed site opening hours.
NIMBYISM, NIMBYISM, NIMBYISM! Is the whole of this VILLAGE website soon to be totally dominated by BG moans? It may have escaped your notice but there are hundreds of houses on BG. How many lorries, diggers etc do you think passed other people's houses in Sussex and beyond to build BG? A half decent solicitor looking at a selection of the 'deeds' for BG will be able to tell you what the legal and ownership position is regarding the roads. Why not arrange whip round (a couple of quid from each BG house should be more than enough to get things started) rather than keep throwing the same legalistic questions out for random responses from the readers of this site? |
Commuter |
 |
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 16:44:24
|
Commuter
As I recall during BG construction most site traffic accessed directly from the A259 down Roundstone Lane & not through the village.
Finding "a half decent solicitor" locally is not that easy as the one that did the conveyancing for my property actually confirmed that the roads,sewers etc. had been adopted. Now that, at last,the facts are out in the open I see no point in wasting any more money.
Perhaps a separate BG village website might satisfy you. |
Edited by - BRAM on 10 Aug 2009 16:47:57 |
|
|
|
Commuter
Senior Member
United Kingdom
166 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 17:58:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by BRAM
Commuter
As I recall during BG construction most site traffic accessed directly from the A259 down Roundstone Lane & not through the village.
Finding "a half decent solicitor" locally is not that easy as the one that did the conveyancing for my property actually confirmed that the roads,sewers etc. had been adopted. Now that, at last,the facts are out in the open I see no point in wasting any more money.
Perhaps a separate BG village website might satisfy you.
I was careful to make my traffic point quite wide. Most of the village was spared construction traffic, but it is highly likely that this traffic will have passed quite a few homes on its journey from the various factories, quarries etc supplying the component parts for a new house. My point is simply that most people want to live in an industrialised society with all the goodies that has to offer, but don't want to suffer any of the inconvenience.
As for the solicitor point, if you were told that the roads etc HAD been adopted and they haven't, seems like a promising case for a bit of compensation from the solicitor. Quite a few solicitors firms nowadays specialise in suing other solicitors! |
Commuter |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2009 : 23:01:14
|
Commuter
Yes traffic of all sorts impinges on someones locality for one reason or another in modern society e.g.in the course of building houses, hospitals, cars, boats,aeroplanes etc. & of course in transporting consumables of various kinds but I'm not sure that is relevant to this issue.
Thanks for the suggestion regarding solicitors, albeit belated, but I posted the following some time ago on the Community Centre Planning Application thread:
Posted - 08 Aug 2008 : 16:56:46
Neil
Sorry for delay in replying to your posting regarding response from Solicitor re CC but I've only just caught up with latest on this subject.
My wife & I bought our house on BG in July 2007 & despite paying for property searches prior to completion our local Solicitor failed to draw attention to the S106 agreement & proposed CC. The first we learned was from local press.so much for using professional firms with local knowledge!!
We contacted our Solicitor who only then provided the Search report. On complaining the Solicitor denied any failing & so we complained to the Legal Complaints Service who found that the firm had provided inadequate professional service & we obtained a compensation payment, which although validated our complaint did not adequately compensate for the adverse effect that the CC will undoubtedly inflict on BG residents.
I would however recommend to any BG residents who were not advised by their Solicitors to pursue the matter, if necessary via the Legal Complaints Service (www.legalcomplaints.org.uk)
|
|
|
|
Guiseppe
Average Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2009 : 19:06:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by veryangry
I can not understand how HGV's are being allowed to come onto BG to service the new school build project.
The HGV's can cause damage to the roads which are not being maintained by the WSCC. Have the residents given permission???
The HGV's are causing residents to get angry as vehicles are left runing outside of residenatil dwellings causing Noise, Vibrations, and air pollution. Some of these HGV's are arriving nearly 1 hour before the agreed site opening hours.
|
|
|
|
Guiseppe
Average Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2009 : 19:16:52
|
E Mail received this evening from WSCC which seems to indicate a switch of access from Nursery Rd./Rowan Way to Roundstone Lane/ Bramley Way .
A number of residents have contacted the County Council raising a range of issues. This statement provides residents with further information and hopefully answers to their questions.
1. What works are being undertaken at the school?
The works will significantly improve the 6th Form facilities at the school. Modular buildings will be replaced with new accommodation. We believe that this will significantly enhance the facilities available.
In addition the works will provide an enhanced pedestrian access to the school from Bramley Green dealing with a long running concern of local residents.
2. When will the works start?
The works will start on 17th August and will continue for around 10 months.
Some vehicles have accessed the site in recent days to progress preliminary works.
3. How will vehicles access the site?
It is proposed that access will be obtained from Roundstone Lane and Bramley Way. West Sussex County Council has been granted rights to use this route to access the site by the developer.
4. What other points of access were considered?
Greenwood Drive was considered but there is a planning restriction preventing the use of this route. Using this route would have resulted in significant disruption at the school as vehicles would have been required to travel through the school grounds.
Access from Station Road, south of Greenwood Road, was considered but this would have required crossing land over which we do not have the necessary rights. In addition this option would have resulted in significant expense due to the length of the haul road required and would have caused significant disruption to the school playing field.
Access direct from the A259 was also considered but again this would have required crossing land over which we do not have the necessary rights.
5. Is it safe for vehicles to access via Bramley Way?
The contractors will undertake a full health and safety assessment prior to works commencing. We will ensure that vehicles are monitored carefully to ensure that speeds are low. Planning constraints already restrict access to between 8:00 and 18:00 but we will look to restrict this further if necessary to avoid key times such as school start and finish times. If necessary we will ensure that a banksman is available to guide large vehicles.
6. The roads are unadopted – will residents be liable for any damage caused?
No. The County Council has undertaken a survey of the current road condition and should the works result in any damage quote:
Originally posted by veryangry
I can not understand how HGV's are being allowed to come onto BG to service the new school build project.
The HGV's can cause damage to the roads which are not being maintained by the WSCC. Have the residents given permission???
The HGV's are causing residents to get angry as vehicles are left runing outside of residenatil dwellings causing Noise, Vibrations, and air pollution. Some of these HGV's are arriving nearly 1 hour before the agreed site opening hours.
|
|
|
|
deb8
Average Member
59 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2009 : 20:39:19
|
Guiseppe
The email from WScc was indeed interesting.
As for the comment 'Access direct from the A259 was also considered but again this would have required crossing land over which we do not have the necessary right', it would be interesting to know what attempts have been made to purchase land and make a brand new access in to Angmering School.
The last Ofsted report for Angmering School states 'The Angmering School is LARGER than most other Secondary Schools'. the original access route was built when the school housed 200+pupils and numbers listed for 2006 were 1453 students.
It beggars belief that anyone would be planning further building at the school without planning an 'up to date' entrance. This would also eleviate any chaos caused at both Bramley Green and The Dell and to the village as a whole.
Again I believe that monies are available as the proposed new school wasnt built.
This construction inconvenience could have been avoided with a little forward planning !!
At the end of last term the school traffic and parking was a nightmare - Is it going to take a serious accident before someone from the council takes action!! |
|
|
|
Guiseppe
Average Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2009 : 22:04:48
|
Apologies - missed out part of E Mail from WSCC on previous posting,remaider reads :
6. The roads are unadopted – will residents be liable for any damage caused?
No. The County Council has undertaken a survey of the current road condition and should the works result in any damage then the County Council will provide the necessary repairs and secure the costs of the works from the contractor.
The roads have been built to adoptable standards. The County Council is therefore satisfied that the drainage and other underground services will not be affected by these works.
The contractor will be required to ensure that vehicles are ‘clean’ when leaving site but should the vehicles leave excessive quantities of mud on the road then the County Council will ensure that this is cleared at the contractors expense.
7. Have residents been consulted?
Yes. The proposals were explained at an open evening at the school in February. The access proposals were made clear at this presentation.
The proposals have been considered through a formal consultation process prior to the grant of planning permission
County officers would be happy to liaise with the parish council and the residents group to address issues as they arise.
8. When will the roads be adopted?
It remains the intention of the County Council to adopt these roads. Once the roads are adopted the County Council will take on full responsibility for maintenance. The roads are currently offered for adoption with a 20mph speed limit but unfortunately speed surveys demonstrate that speeds are in excess of 20mph. Legislation requires that a 20mph zone be self enforcing through the introduction of physical speed reducing measures and the County Council therefore requires the developer to introduce further measures to reduce speeds prior to the roads being adopted. If this were not the case then the cost of these additional works would fall on the council tax payers of West Sussex. We will continue to press the developer to introduce the appropriate measures that will enable the County Council to adopt the roads.
Duncan Barratt
Service Manager Local Development
11th august 2009
|
|
|
|
GrumpyGirl
Average Member
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 13:05:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guiseppe
E Mail received this evening from WSCC
Re the recent statement received from WSCC about the heavy lorries and road adoption in Bramley Green, FYI have just sent the following comments back and would suggest all concerned residents should also communicate their views directly to WSCC, APC and to Amanda Burrell at the Littlehampton Gazette.
"Thank you for your e-mail of 13 August and the attached note to residents on Derek Whittington's behalf.
Unfortunately you have not addressed satisfactorily all of the points raised in our e-mail of 7 August to Derek. With reference to your numbered comments :
- re (2), the contractors' lorries actually started on Monday 3rd August, two weeks earlier than the date you have advised. What authority was given by WSCC to the contractors for that ? How are WSCC actually monitoring and controlling the contractors ?
- re (4), why could WSCC not purchase the right to access the school site either from the A259 (which would seem the most sensible route as no houses lie in the way and no disruption to residents would be caused), or from Station Road south of Greenwood Drive, or from Mayflower Way (which you appear to have not considered at all, despite the fact there are hardly any houses in that road !) ?
You quote the "significant expense" of those other options and those routes causing "significant disruption to the school playing field". We and a large number of other residents doubt that cost and disruption is anywhere near the same magnitude as the enormous human cost over the 12 months of the work of the noise, nuisance, diesel pollution, damage, considerable danger to residents and their young families, stress and other health & safety concerns caused to the 2,000 council-tax paying residents of Bramley Green through the use of the narrow, unsuitable and unadopted roads here. Why has that human cost to the residents and families of Bramley Green been ignored by WSCC ?
As to your comment about "vehicles travelling through the school grounds", why could the contractors' vehicles not access via that route when the school is shut overnight ? Building work could then take place during the day without disruption to either the school or the 2,000 residents of Bramley Green. Why has that not been considered by WSCC ?
Moreover, the 650 houses within Bramley Green have all been paying their full Council Tax for the last 5 years - at the same levels as other properties within West Sussex - but have not received the same service from WSCC due to the ongoing non-adoption of our roads. Will we be reimbursed that unwarranted overcharge ?
- re (5), it is patently apparent that the contractors' health safety assessment prior to the works commencing was inadequate, assuming that it was done at all. What involvement has there been from WSCC's own or any independent Health & Saftey inspectorate ? Due to the narrow roads of Bramley Green, and the many even narrower pinchpoints, the very large 35 ton vehicles that the contractors are using clearly pose highly significant healthy & safety risks to the 2,000 residents of Bramley Green and their families, and to the large number of non-Bramley Green resident children walking down these roads to access Angmering School every weekday. These concerns have been ignored.
As to your comment that WSCC will "monitor carefully these vehicles to ensure that speeds are kept low" - that is patently not happening. Many residents have personally seen the contractors' vehicles hurtling through the Bramley Green roads at speeds well in excess of 20mph and in many cases in excess of even 30mph. Clearly, neither WSCC nor the contractors are meeting their responsibilities to ensure the health and safety of Bramley Green residents and their families.
You also state that "access is restricted to between 8:00 and 18:00". From residents' own experience that is not the case - contractors' vehicles have been observed as early as 7:00 in the morning, creating totally unacceptable disruption to the lives of the 2,000 Bramley Green residents and their families. It is clearly the case that WSCC's statements have no basis in fact and that you are failing to meet your responsibilities.
- re (6), you state that "the County Council is satisfied that the drainage and other underground services will not be affected by these works", but offer no expert evidence to support that statement. A large number of Bramley Green residents have substantial evidence from the original building of their homes that the quality and soundness of the construction work carried out by the Developers leaves a great deal to be desired. What independent inspection of the Bramley Green drains, sewers and other underground services has been carried out by qualified surveyors to enable WSCC to be so satisfied, particularly given the excessive 35 ton weights of the vehicles involved ? The residents of Bramley Green are not so satisfied and continue to hold WSCC responsible for the repair of any damage caused to those underground services.
You also state that "excessive quantities of mud on the road" will be cleared at the contractors' expense. What about the considerable and growing amount of all the other loose debris that falls off the 35 ton contractors' vehicles as they pass through the Bramley Green roads ? Who will clean that up and when ?
- re (7), You refer to the "proposals being explained at an open evening at the School in February". Quite categorically, neither we nor any of a large number of Bramley Green residents we have spoken with were aware of any such meeting at which the use of Bramley Green's roads for access were explained. To whom was that meeting communicated and how was it advertised, as it was certainly not communicated to the 2,000 residents of Bramley Green ? Why was there no communication, distribution of information, or consultation by WSCC to the residents of Bramley Green about the intended use of our roads ?
Moreover, why were Angmering Parish Council not made aware by WSCC ? At the 10 August 2009 meeting of Angmering Parish Council, the Chairman stated explicitly that APC did not become aware of the intended use of the Bramley Green roads until very recently, following residents' complaints after their receipt of the 28 July 2009 letter from W.Stirland the contractors.
That lack of communication and prior consultation by WSCC with the 2,000 residents and families of Bramley Green is frankly a disgrace and should be subjected to investigation at the highest level.
You state that "County officers would be happy to liaise with the Parish Council and the residents to address these issues". The residents asked at the 10 August 2009 Parish Council meeting that a Public Meeting with WSCC be arranged on this issue forthwith. Please confirm when and where that will take place in the very near future. In the meantime, all use of Bramley Green's roads by the contractors' heavy vehicles should be suspended.
- re (8) on the subject of the adoption of Bramley Green's roads, you have simply restated the "party line" issued previously by WSCC and totally ignored the several valid points made in our earlier e-mail of 7 August to Derek Whittington - these are repeated below and we would appreciate your early acknowledgment and response :
"We very much welcome your statement that it is the intention of WSCC to adopt these roads. However, you reference that the roads are currently offered for adoption with a 20mph limit and that a speed survey has demonstrated that speeds are in excess of that. We would respectfully point out that :
a) whilst the roads remain unadopted (and therefore privately owned) no speed limits have any legal standing and cannot be enforced. The speed survey results are therefore of no relevance as drivers have never been obligated to comply.
b) the last speed survey was carried out 2 years ago (as confirmed by Harvey Rogers at WSCC) since which time the Developers have implemented further traffic calming measures. The results of the survey are clearly out of date and do not support the contention that speeds are in excess even if the limits were enforceable.
c) if the roads were adopted, that would enable legally enforceable speed limits and other accident-reducing specific traffic regulating measures to be implemented (e.g. yellow lines in dangerous parking locations such as by Give Way signs, traffic calming pinch-points or on the crown of bends). That would be very much welcomed by the majority of the residents.
d) the vast majority of other residential areas in West Sussex have 30 mph not 20mph limits and their roads are adopted by WSCC. We do not believe that driver behaviour within Bramley Green is materially different to that elsewhere; and we pay the same rates of Council Tax as all those other areas but at present (and for the last 5 or more years) do not get the same benefit of the Council maintaining our roads.
e) whilst our roads remain unadopted, and therefore the responsibility of the developers, we and many other residents have little basis of trust that the Developers will honour their obligations to maintain the road condition at their cost as the roads deteriorate over time. Our and many others' experience of the Developers in originally building our homes and resolving all the problems therein, plus the Developers lack of response to letters both from WSCC (as indicated by Harvey Rogers) and from residents over a long period, suggests strongly that we are not able to rely on the Developers meeting their obligations. Some residents who have moved to Bramley Green from other new developments in West Sussex have direct experience that also evidences that view.
WSCC has also mentioned previously the alternative of applying a 30mph speed limit and has stated its understanding that the residents do not wish to pusue that. What is the basis of that understanding ? In the five years and more that we and hundreds of other residents have lived here, we are not aware of anyone seeking our opinion on this matter. We have recently spoken with a sample of residents, the clear majority of whom would be happy with a 30mph limit if that enabled the roads to be adopted and maintained by WSCC and appropriate legally enforceable accident-reducing traffic regulating measures to be implemented. We therefore request that alternative be considered forthwith."
We await your speedy and satisfactory response on all of the above outstanding matters." |
|
|
|
BRAM
Advanced Member
373 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 13:52:34
|
Well said GrumpyGirl.
I would also be interested to know what action APC has actually taken since the meeting of 10 August, apart from posting Duncan Barrett's Q&A response dated 11 August, both on this & the other topics raised during public questions which they promised to look into. |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 15:04:54
|
Yes, very well put together GrumpyGirl.
I do not live on BG (but quite close)and do not use the roads, but this is clearly a real problem.
I agree with all your points, other than the Council Tax bit of roads being unadopted. It may appear unfair but you will not win that argument and I would not give them the opportunity to use one subject with which to attack your case.
Council tax, whether we agree with it or not, contributes to many different issues of funding at each level of Local Government.
Over half of the expenditure from our Council tax payments and Government Grant through other general taxation, goes on Education and childrens services, but my wife and I do not get excused payment because we do not have children / grandchildren.
We all have to grin and bear it whether we get direct use of the services or not.
Also, many of the roads on Parklands and other neighbouring estates at Rustington, have not been adopted by WSCC for more years than those on BG, although I appreciate they do not have the building works/lorries problem.
Keep going, but your argument will be more difficult to answer if you keep to the main issues, upon which, your case is very strong. |
|
|
|
GrumpyGirl
Average Member
United Kingdom
88 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2009 : 17:37:42
|
You will all be very interested in the following just sent to the APC Chairman,
"Dear Nigel,
You stated to the Public attendees at the 10 August 2009 meeting of Angmering Parish Council, that APC did not become aware of the intended use of the Bramley Green roads by the constructors' vehicles until very recently, following residents' complaints after their receipt of the 28 July 2009 letter from W.Stirland the contractors.
In researching the lack of communication and consultation by WSCC with Bramley Green residents on this matter, we have reviewed WSCC's planning application A/11/09 for the new school building which, inter alia, states specifically :
a) the site was carefully chosen to reduce impact on the surrounding neighbouring properties
b) the siting of the new two stoey block has been carefully positioned to reduce the impact on surrounding residential properties to the north and north east (i.e. Bramley Green)
c) the temporary (construction) roadway has been designed to connect to the existing access point on the roundabout in Bramley Green estate
d) detailed pre-construction planning will be undertaken .... to minimise disruption to .... local communities.
We have also found out that :
(i) there was a public exhibition relating to this planning application, held at Angmering School on 3 February 2009 - of which Bramley Green residents were not notified; and
(ii) Angmering Parish Council wrote to Mr M Vine at WSCC on 23 February 2009 stating explicitly that "Council has no objection to the proposal, subject to no contractor access for construction through Greenwoood Drive". The letter from APC was signed by Vivien Bristow, Assistant Clerk, on behalf of the Council of which you are Chairman.
In view of the above information, we would most strongly suggest that you and the Council owe the 2,000 residents of Bramley Green and their families an immediate explanation as to :
- why APC did not ensure in February 2009 that the proposals were communicated to all residents in the local community of Bramley Green and that appropriate consultation then took place ?
- why APC did not register any objection to WSCC in February 2009 to the use of Bramley Green's narrow and unsuitable roads for the construction traffic; and the consequent disruption, noise, nuisance, danger and other health & safety impacts on those residents ?
- why APC did not raise in its response to WSCC the merits of considering alternative far less disruptive routes for the construction traffic, either from the A259, from Station Road, or from Mayflower Way ?
- why you misled the public attendees at the APC meeting on 10 August 2009 by stating you had no prior knowledge of this issue, when it is clear from the above facts that you had that specific knowledge at least 6 months earlier ?"
|
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2009 : 10:40:29
|
As Bert suggests elsewhere, we have two more or less the same topics going at the same time which is a bit confusing.
Accordingly, I'm closing this topic and future postings should be under the topic "Bramley Green Road Adoption / Building Site Traffic" |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
