The RDP timeline makes reference to an initial design brought forward by the environmental architect. I have included this design below to give a better understanding of the process so far.
While it was felt there were many beneficial features to this design and that it could have a positive impact to life within the village the committee ultimately took the decision to reject this design on the basis of scale.
Over the last few years it had become clear that there are a number in the village who would oppose any change being made to the green, however there are others who feel the addition of other facilities will expand the benefits the green has to offer. It is the responsibility of the committee to balance these competing objectives and it was felt this initial design did not achieve this balance primarily due to the scale of development on the green. It was with this in mind that the committee rejected the design and instead presented the design which went out to consultation.
The circular central area proposed here would have been vastly preferable to the current plans. Although there is still hard landscaping, it fulfils a year round purpose, and enhances the park. I am so frustrated that village residents were allowed no input in this process, why were we not allowed to see these alternative plans until it was too late?
This design was rejected primarily on the basis of its size. The committee were aware of sensitivities toward anything that would be done on the green and wanted to keep it small scale. In addition this failed to address some of the other requests, namely the fencing at the end of the village (there was insufficient budget remaining based on the oval design) and the toddler play equipment. It was for these reasons it was felt this design was unsuitable. Had we taken it forward for consultation we would have been in a position where if rejected we would not have had sufficient time for an alternative plan given the short timescales which you yourself have pointed out to us on several occasions leading up to this. I cannot see how you can see a year round purpose in the original proposal yet cannot see the same on the revised proposal, both areas can be used in the same way.
So you’re saying that the committee made a unilateral decision about what was in the best interests of the village without consulting the village.
I am saying the design did not meet the brief put forward by the working group as it did not address some of the requirements and also was of far larger impact than had been requested.
Unfortunately due to the time taken to get to this stage the committee had to make a judgement call to request a revised design that better met the requests made in the long list. This is because it was felt that there was too great a risk of the design being rejected at which point there would not have been time to revise the design and the funding would have been lost.
If we are to accept an area of hard landscaping is wanted by the majority, please can you explain a bit more why the current proposal is a better design than this one?
Are you suggesting you would have preferred this design?
I thought I had covered that in my explanation but I suppose the simple answer is the new design is smaller and therefore less intrusive on the green which we had hoped would be seen as a compromise with those less keen on seeing changes made to the green
Comments are closed.