Thursday, 11 March 2010

St Marys Public Meeting


I attended the public meeting to discuss the Planning Application regarding St Marys organised by my colleague Cllr Terry Grayshon. The meeting was well attended and mainly good humoured as many people raised their concerns about the application.


The meeting was addressed by a planning officer from Leeds City Council and the architect for the Developer both of whom answered very difficult questions in a fair and honest way. It became clear that most (if not all) of the attenders opposed the present application. The planning officer accepted that the present plan was likely to lead to a refusal on Highways, loss of amenity and impact on the conservation area grounds and the architect was sent a clear message from the meeting that the present proposal is unacceptable for the same reasons.


The architect has agreed to go away from the meeting with residents concerns and to re-work the proposal which, I suspect, will be scrutinised equally closely.


Perhaps any future meetings need to focus on what would be acceptable for the building. It is clearly unacceptable to all for any access to come off coffin corner and for any large scale block which impacts on Troy Road. It is similarly unacceptable to most residents for any attempt to interfere with the graveyard itself although there seemed to be a reluctant acceptance that if the graveyard remains undisturbed, a sensitive placing of grave stones may be more acceptable.


A proposal is being prepared which could see a lottery bid to convert the church to a heritage centre. I wish the proposal the best of luck but having being involved with lottery bids before I know that it can be a difficult challenge to convince funding bodies to stump up the cash. Our own Shirley Varley attended a funding board several years ago in Todmorden to ask for finance to support conversion of the church to a heritage centre but was refused because the building is a grade 2 listed one and not a grade 2 star building which apparently meant no finance could be offered.


I hope whatever happens in the future will deliver a proposal that will retain the church and avoid the need for any disturbance of the grave yard. If this can be delivered within a sensible planning application then we need to consider it fully.


A final footnote about Morley's BNP Councillors. The BNP Town Councillor Joanne Beverley couldn't be bothered to attend at all while Cllr Chris Beverley attended for 40 minutes , said nothing at all and then disappeared! On this occassions he wasnt a "no show" Nazi but more of a "bail out early" BNP Councillor.


St Marys needs to be preserved to continue to positively dominate Morley's skyline for the next 140 years. I hope a proposal will come forward in the near future that achieves this aim.

3 comments:

  1. I would like to correct you to save your yellow highlighter next week.

    A proposal is NOT being made to apply for lottery funding. I have simply asked for some information regarding past efforts.

    Whatever happens to St Mary's I believe that Morley's best chances of gaining some community space and innovative ideas will come from working together and sharing knowledge.

    I would add that I do not approve of the Fantasy Politics remark you coined in your last post. I find the emerging awareness and involvement within the local community awe inspiring. To diminish it as make believe shows very little respect for the public you serve.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Im afraid we are not going to agree on this one. Having been involved with community groups and organisations and with a record of community camapaigning covering 25 years I am consistenly impressed by their committment and respect their views.

    However it is vital to be honest and realistic with people about what can be acheived to avoid raising expectations that might be dashed. Failure to offer a cautious approach and failing to deliver on pledges does more damage to community involvement than almost anything else.

    Partnership is most welcomed but respect has to be offered on all sides if a succesful approach it to be acheived.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Im afraid we are not going to agree on this one. Having been involved with community groups and organisations and with a record of community camapaigning covering 25 years I am consistenly impressed by their committment and respect their views.

    However it is vital to be honest and realistic with people about what can be acheived to avoid raising expectations that might be dashed. Failure to offer a cautious approach and failing to deliver on pledges does more damage to community involvement than almost anything else.

    Partnership is most welcomed but respect has to be offered on all sides if a succesful approach it to be acheived.

    ReplyDelete