From: Sue Tarvit Sent: 28 May 2020 17:15 To: DevelopmentControl Subject: FW: Object to the loss of the Camrose

From: Karen Lawson < Sent: 28 May 2020 17:14 To: Sue Tarvit Subject: Object to the loss of the Camrose

**** PLEASE NOTE: This message has originated from a source external to & Deane Borough Council, and has been scanned for viruses. Borough Council reserves the right to store and monitor e-mails ****

Object to the loss of The Camrose/ Roundabout

Date: 28th May 2020

Camrose Planning Applications

References 19/01110/0UT, 19/02889/OUT, 19/03116/CVMA/ HCC Ref PLAN/SD/BAH006

Objections

I am personally opposed to the Camrose Planning Applications because

- the loss of the Camrose as a sports amenity after some 70 years as the home of Basingstoke Town FC is a detriment to the wider community and the nature and density of proposed flats is not in keeping with the area and not what the town needs. Furthermore, the applications do not satisfy the stipulations in the National Planning Policy Framework para 97; nor do they meet the terms of policy CN8 .

-the new facilities at Winklebury are a separate community development largely planned before and not as a replacement for the Camrose, to meet needs identified before the eviction of the football club. The Winklebury facilities are already oversubscribed and cannot meet the needs of all Basingstoke Town FC teams including reserves ,youth and junior teams for matches and training. Nor does Winklebury - as a community facility- provide unrestricted scope for progression in line with club aspirations as previously achieved at the Camrose.

- for a number of years the Town has enjoyed two football stadiums and in the light of estimated population growth and increasing demand that status quo should be maintained in any consideration of proposed replacement facilities of equivalent or better quality, quantity and accessibility. The inability to make necessary hirings at Winklebury means the facility there is not fully accessible.

- the loss of the Camrose without consideration of maintaining a second replacement stadium is not consistent with the spirit and intention of the Council's Horizon 2050 A vision for the future of Basingstoke and Deane (Spring 2019) with the objective of 'outstanding sports and leisure facilities'.

1 Section 106

Any section 106 agreement should be based on the full replacement cost of a 'like for like' stadium , not on topping up the provision at Winklebury by wrongly piggy backing on the investment of over £1m by the Football Foundation, FA, the borough council and Basingstoke Town Community FC's £58k for hard standing and stand foundations.

Even though a site for a second stadium has not been identified, Basron 's like for like replacement costs should be paid into a fund that could be used for identified priority needs at Winklebury and those securing development at a new site. Beyond that the section 106 should not be split across the borough. This would enable two central hubs .

. HCC Link road and Brighton Hill roundabout

The consideration of the Basron planning applications should not be favoured because of the Hampshire County Council proposals for a link road through the Camrose as part of the A30 Brighton Hill Roundabout scheme. Much needed improvements to the roundabout can be achieved by options of traffic light controls without closing Western Way access to the roundabout and constructing an unnecessary link road. Now HCC have made major design changes to the central area of the roundabout - fundamental to the whole scheme. This removes subways and puts pedestrians and cyclists on the same level as busy traffic. This gives rise to serious health and safety issues. The whole scheme needs to be subject to fresh consultation , looking at a range of options as HCC must have developed previously

Sign: Karen Lawson

Date: 28/5/2020

Full Address: 65 Mansfield Road Basingstoke Hants RG22 6DZ

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

2