Enjoying Holdingham at Christmas: the bits I remember!

It seems to take ages (weeks) leading up to Christmas. Making sure everyone is remembered and any presents are bought in time. The wrapping up bit I hate. 

The food preparation takes ages: at least these days the power supply seems constant and not erratic as when my mother did it years ago. So the meal is generally on time these days: and the quality good (we had a really tasty Turkey and excellent Beef this year). 

Then suddenly the meal is over: piles of washing up and a haze descends on proceedings. Playing games is often argumentaive and rules being changed as the game progresses.

Here is a short video of a Harry Potter quiz. You will get the drift of what I mean.

Harry Potter Quiz

More Jams in Sleaford due to A17/Holdingham Roundabout congestion (and vehicle problems).

Very difficult to get across the Lincoln Road today (22 December at around 12:30). I gather there had been vehicle problems on the A17 earlier but these jams were due to maybe a fire on the Holdingham Roundabouty. That was the informaion I had.

Here are a couple of photos I took whilst trying to decide how I would get to the other side of the road. Where are the lights/zebra crossings when you need one?! Both the Target and Standard later reported it.

Looking towards Hockmeyers Garage 

Managed to get across as cars were not going anywhere soon

Response by Sleaford Town Council (STC) to Supplementary Planning Document (affecting Sleaford and Holdingham)!

The Sleaford Town Council has just had to respond to the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which identifies how the growth, and required local services and infrastructure, will be met through the levying of charges on the Builders. 

This report reflects SPD Part 1 (1 to 5) and Part 2 (6 to 11) and LP’s (Local Plan).

 The adopted Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, with conditions detailed in the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and through LP’s defined, forms the basis for implementing the Plan up until 2035. Additionally Section 106 agreements (mainly site based) will be used to provide the facilities required: earlier suggestions were that both S106 & CIL would not be levied on a site (is this correct?).  Usage of CIL will be for the purpose of developing the Lincoln by-pass and Education projects (see 11.3).

Note: The low rates of CIL (originally set at £20 per square metre) were reduced further in the Consultation period down to £15 to make the development of the plan more amenable to developers. STC at the time had asked for £40. See 4.10, 4.12 & 4.13 re CIL liability.

Sleaford Town Council has previously highlighted concerns, also expressed by its Consultants, at its capacity to absorb the level of housing that has been agreed and the impact that will have on the existing Town infrastructure and poor inter-Town and wider communication problems.  This against a backdrop of the local area suffering “Nationally Recognized “very high road mortality rates. 

Pace of development of the Urban Extensions will generally be demand led:  and develop over a relatively long period of time. Experience has shown that local infrastructure and facilities lag behind requirement.  It is of concern: it is already happening in the smaller developments taking place (Holdingham Grange for example).  Elsewhere Drainage Capacity (where to?) is unclear (Section 7): and local drainage systems may already be under pressure.

Sleaford also contains some Brownfield Land although at the time of writing the Register (Parts 1 and 2) has not been finalized. Brownfield land development is not mentioned in the SPD.  However it was a Government priority to develop these prior to Greenfield sites. This would also have implications for Affordable Housing (Section 6 & LP11). 

Conclusion:  the SPD assumes a Developer/Builder approach with minimum CIL payments for wider infrastructure investment. This has disadvantages.   Road safety is only addressed at a very local level and ignored the wider need to reduce road casualty rates and congestion. 

Whilst the Planning Authority has exhaustively categorized the factors that planning obligations demand:  the enforcement of these may be difficult. The use of, or categorizing of Brownfield Land (as required by Government) is unavailable at this juncture. That may also impact on Affordable Housing availability.

A more detailed role out plan is required which also sets targets for phased development: including crime, road safety and mobility including emergency services, health, drainage, and clean water.  

References:

 LP10: Meeting Community Needs: LP11 Affordable Housing: LP12 Infrastructure to support growth: LP13 Accessibility and Transport: LP14 Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk

LP16: Development of Land affected by Contamination.   

Snow or (not as much as expected?) for Holdingham

With the final day of the Lincoln Market cancelled (and many complaints following that decision) it seems that maybe it could have gone ahead. Although  I don't envy the one(s) who had to make the decision. The Sleaford Christmas market week earlier, on a mild day,  was very lucky. 

The forecast was for snow: and in Sleaford it duly started on schedule at about 8.00 am.

But by midday it was easing and the snow that settled became to thaw slightly. Not much, to my knowledge, fell on Lincoln itself.

Maybe a bit more tonight and again in a day or two. Here is a link to the BBC report today (10 December) 

Sunday 11am

Trevitt Close

A17 Works: Holdingham Sleaford: some disruption expected. .

It has been well publicised so it is not unexpected. Here are some photos from the Farm  Bridge on November 28th. 

The Sleaford Standard also has covered the story. 

Lets see how long and what improvements emerge. 

Sleaford West Urban Extension: what the Planning Committee decided

The latest debate about the Sleaford West Urban extension debate took place on Wednesday 8th November 2017. 

Inching forward slowly towards making it viable as far as the Planning Inspectors and others are concerned. 

Well maybe. Almost a full vote in favour of what has happened so far in bringing a viable plan together. 

However the impact on the rest of Sleaford; the ability to be sufficiently self-contained to avoid congestion elsewhere: and what happens if transport and Health facilities do not arrive on time. Well again hazy areas indeed. 

The Standard has run an article: the debate is on audio. Local Councillors did speak but so far voting is almost unanimous to go ahead. The audio recording is just over an hour long and local Councillor comments start at around 30 minutes. Some useful contributions from local Councillors.

Watch this space!

Holdingham Ward Report: Sleaford Town Council 1st November 2017

Every month or so Councillors are asked to put in Ward Reports of anything happening within their Ward. This was my input on November 1st.

Holdingham Ward Report November 1^st 2017

Some increased activity on the Woodside Open Space Play Area.

During visits in the half-tem “Football” Games were being played in the middle of the 4-5 acre field. Youngsters (about 6 to 12) playing impromptu team games.

Increase usage of the play equipment.

A Fun day event (Harvest Fun-day” was organised on Tuesday 24^th between 11.00 and 13.00. Posters were displayed and placed on Facebook.

Lincoln Road Play Area/Open Space was also well attended in the generally mild Autumnal day.

Litter: some increase in litter during the half-term and at times in the evening at other times. This includes rubbish being thrown into the Becs on Lincoln Road. The extra bin leading to into Peterborough Way was often full of cartons so use of these bins by the Public is welcome.  Similarly: dog fouling.  The new developments mentioned below, and adjacent roads, appear to have litter problems.

Holdingham Grange: Although it has made news in the local paper after publicity nd comment at our STC Planning meeting the issue of the intersection with the Sustrans/ Connect 2 cycle track has not yet been addressed although work has been completed by BT which meant road signs had to  placed adjacent to Holdingham Mead and Holdingham Lane. Hope fully the next work will be the make this access to Holdingham Grange safe.

Still no temporary signs though to warn pedestrians and vehicles of potential dangers.

Social Services/Family Problems:  As a Ward Councillor I did receive (through the STC link) a letter of concern about a family within Holdingham. I cannot go into detail for obvious reasons but I passed the message on to Heidi Ryder at NKDC. The isssue was: if beyond say the remit of Social Services who's responsibilty is it?  It left me concerned that as a Town Councillor I could not get involved directly. Was this an NK issue to be dealt with or the PCSO’s or what?

Just a note: I am intrigued by these storage  devices at the entrance tio the Woodsise area off Beech-Rise. Any ideas anyone? 

. 

Sleaford Town Council October 18th 2017

Not all plain sailing! 

The link below is to Youtube and a video collection of some of the Agenda Items at Wednesday's meeting this week. Filmed by Susan Charlesworth (as allowed under law). 

18th October STC Video

The backdrop to the Allowance Panels (and leading on to who gets it) is copied below (a brief extract)

COUNCILLORS’ ALLOWANCES 

Introduction 1. The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI.2003/1021) came into force on 1st May 2003. The regulations apply to local authorities in England only and substantially change the system that previously existed.

2. When the regulations were first introduced they applied to elected members only and not to those who were co-opted onto committees. However, the regulations were amended in 2004 (by virtue of The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) (Amendments) Regulations 2004 (SI.2004/2596) so that some of the provisions relate to co-opted members. However, the only practical consequence of the amendments related to a period ending on the 2 November 2004 and, consequently, the amendments are not discussed further in this Note. Background

3. Previously, sections 173 to 178 of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended, and the regulations made thereunder, set out the rules for the payment of allowances to members of parish and town councils. These broadly dealt with attendance allowance and financial loss allowance (s.173), travelling allowance and subsistence allowance (s.174), allowances for attending conferences and meetings (s.175), the payment of expenses of official and courtesy visits (s.176) and supplementary provisions (s.177 and s.178).

4. S.173 to s.175 and s.176(1)(a) and (2) ceased to apply on 31 December 2003 and hence the supplementary provisions relevant to those sections also fell. S.176(1)(b) remains in force. This provides for a council to defray any expenses incurred in the LTN 33 November 2007 LTN 33 National Association of Local Councils Tel: 020 7637 1865  Fax: 020 7436 7451  e-mail: nalc@nalc.gov.uk  website: www.nalc.gov.uk reception and entertainment by way of official courtesy of distinguished persons visiting the area of the authority.

5. Under this system, allowances were paid to councillors for performing an approved duty outside the parish or town. No allowances were paid for attendance at a meeting of the council, its committees or sub committees or for any other approved duty within the parish or town. Travel and subsistence under the new regulations can be paid for travel and subsistence within the parish as well as outside of it. The New System 6. The new regulations are split into 6 Parts. Part 5 deals specifically with parish (and town) councils. Part 4 deals with Independent Remuneration Panels and Part

6 with transitional provisions and it is these 3 Parts with which we are chiefly concerned and upon which this Legal Topic Note will concentrate. Part 4 – Independent Remuneration Panels

7. An independent remuneration panel has to be established by each authority and for the purposes of Part 4, unless otherwise specified, an authority means a district council, a county council and a London borough council. The panel consists of at least 3 members, none of whom is also a member of an authority in respect of which it makes recommendations or a member of a committee or sub committee of such an authority or is disqualified from being or becoming a member of an authority.

8. The parish or town council has to make reference, as will be explained, to a parish remuneration panel. A parish remuneration panel will consist of those persons who are also members of the independent remuneration panel but cannot consist of parish or town councillors of councils in respect of which recommendations are to be made. Part 5 – Parish Councils Parish Basic Allowance – Regulation 25

9. A parish or town council is able to pay a parish basic allowance for each year to its chairman only or to each of its elected members.

Work Starts on Holdingham Grange (Sleaford) junctions.

Update: The work being done at present relates to BTLines and not addressing the cross-over with the Sustrans Cycle Track. That comes after this phase apparently.

At last some work in underway to make safer (I hope) the  cross-over point between Holdingham Lane: Holdingham Mead, The Sustrans Cycle Track (Connect2) and the new developments of Holdingham Grange and Care Home. 

 It has taken time but hopefully will improve matters - although I have no further details. The Care Home looks as though it will be finished next year (early)  and a planning applications is going through Outline Planning to add another 200 dwellings to those already being constructed.


Here are some photos of the work being done.  View from Holdingham Lane and below the new Care Home. Taken October 6th 2017.

From Furlong Way

From Holdingham Lane

Entrance viewed from near Bus
stop.

Care Home

LCC Approval of Commercial Waste at Anaerobic Digestor Plant Holdingham

The text of the LCC response to the use of Commercial Waste and the Anaerobic site is as follows:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be retained and operated in accordance with the following documents and plans unless otherwise modified by the conditions attached to this planning permission.  The approved are as follows: 

 

Documents 

 

 Application Form date stamped received 10 May 2017; 

 Report No: 13-003/R020 v1 – 'Planning Application Supporting Information' date stamped received 10 May 2017; and as amended by 

 'Further information supplemental to Report No: 13/003/R020 v1' date stamped received 6 July 2017; 

 Report No: 13-003/R021 – 'Odour Management Plan' date stamped received  6 July 2017;

  Report No: 13-003/R022 – 'Summary of Planning Information by Email' date stamped received 30 August 2017;

  Report No: 13-003/R012 – 'Pest Management Plan' date stamped received  8 June 2017; 

 Project No: 009502 – 'Outdoor Lighting Report' date stamped received 8 June 2017; 

 Job No: 5355 Issue 03 – 'Drainage Strategy Proposed Biogas Plant' date stamped received 8 June 2017; 

 Application 14/0080/FUL – 'Condition 16 (Bat and Bird Boxes)' date stamped received 8 June 2017; 

 Application 14/0080/FUL – 'Condition 17 (Landscape Planting)' date stamped received 8 June 2017;  

 Application 14/0080/FUL – 'Condition 19 (Perimeter Security Fencing)'; and

  Report No: 13-003/R002 – 'Anaerobic Digestion Facility Noise Impact Assessment' date stamped received 19 September 2017. 

 

Drawings 

 

 No: 13-003-P-020 – 'Location Plan' date stamped received 10 May 2017; 

 No: 1.1 – 'Site Plan' date stamped received 10 May 2017;  No: JN1808-LDS-SK007-A – 'Sustrans Crossing General Details' date stamp received 8 June 2017; 

 No: JN1808-LDS-SK008-B – 'Sustrans Crossing Signs and Road Markings' date stamp received 8 June 2017; 

 No: JN1808-LDS-SK007-A – 'Sustrans Crossing General Details' date stamp received 8 June 2017; 

 No: 14/0080/FUL – 'Lighting column layout drawing' date stamped received  8 June 2017; and 

 No: 2054-D-01 RevD – 'Proposed lighting and luminance layout' date stamped received 8 June 2017. 

 

3. The site is permitted to receive the following feedstocks only: 

 

Waste 

 Wheat Syrup; 

 Glycerol; 

 Poultry Litter;  Waste Vegetables; and 

 

Crops 

 Maize silage;  Grass silage; and  Sugar Beet. 

 

4. All waste listed in condition 3 shall be incorporated into the Anaerobic Digester Vessel on the day of delivery and no waste shall be stored on site. 

 

5. The total tonnage of feedstock processed at the application site shall not exceed 70,000 tonnes per annum.  The waste feedstock shall not exceed 34,300 tonnes per annum.  All feedstock brought to the site shall be weighed at the site’s weighbridge.  The weighbridge records shall be retained for at least two years and be available for inspection by the Waste Planning Authority upon request. 

 

6. All crops stored in the silage clamps shall not exceed 4 metres in height. 

 

7. No crops shall be stored outside at any time other than within the silage clamps. 

 

8. Notwithstanding the detail contained in the approved Report No: 13-003/R021 – 'Odour Management Plan' date stamped received 6 July 2017.  The Odour Management Plan shall be implemented in full and maintained for the duration of the development.  The Odour Monitoring Reports and Odour Complaints Reports shall be retained for two years and shall be available for inspection at the request of the Waste Planning Authority. 

 

9. The digestate lagoon cover shall be retained and maintained for the duration of the development. 

 

10. Any trees, plants or grassed areas planted in accordance with the approved scheme Application 14/0080/FUL – 'Condition 17 (Landscape Planting)' date stamped received 8 June 2017, which within a period of seven years from the date of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size, and species and quality, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 

 

11. The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the following construction materials details which are shown on the approved plans, which in the case of the primary and secondary digester tanks shall be RAL 9006 (white aluminium) for the tank sides and RAL 7005 (mouse grey) for the roof. 

 

12. The means of connection from the AD plant to the National Grid shall be by underground cable. 

 

13. Notwithstanding the detail contained in the approved Report No: 13-003/R002 'Anaerobic Digestion Facility Noise Impact Assessment' date stamp received 19 September 2017, the level of noise arising from the operations on the site at the locations identified in Table 21 shall not exceed a rating level of Average Background Noise Level (dB LA90) +5 dB as identified in Table 21. 

  

The reasons for the conditions are:- 

 

1. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

 

2. To ensure that the development is carried out in an acceptable manner and for avoidance of doubt as to the development that is permitted. 

 

3 – 5 To correspond with the source and volume of waste feedstock materials for which planning permission was applied and to limit the scale of the operations in the interest of the amenity of the area. 

 

6 – 13 In the interests of general and visual amenity. 

 

 

Informative 

 

Attention is drawn to: 

 

(i) Environment Agency - Environmental Permitting – Letter Reference AN/2017/125777/02-L01 dated 24 July 2017, attached to the Decision Notice; and 

 

(ii) In dealing with this application the Waste Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner by processing the application efficiently so as to prevent any unnecessary delay.  This approach ensures the application is handled in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and is consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is action being taken: Holdingham Grange/Holdingham Mead junction?

The Sleaford Town Council (STC) debated an Outline Plan for another two hundred houses at Holdingham Grange. 

Post Note 26/9: Councillor Kate Cook has asked for some signs to be placed near the entrance to  warn pedestrians, motorists, cyclists etc to be warned when approaching this junction.
No positive action so far by the Builder. On October 4th this article has appeared in the Standard

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate concentrated on the mismatch of Cycle Track/Roadway onto the site and Holdingham Lane. The view below is of the development of the Care Home and an image of a car having to cross over into Holdingham Lane. 

The debate is at: STC Agenda Item 7.2. 

Holdingham Grange Ins and Outs

The new Estate has had coverage of late due to Planning Changes which will affect both the overall number of houses but also the number of "Affordable" houses.  

However the way into the new development is an issue (from the Holdingham Mini-Roundabout) and a potential exit off Jacob(s) Close is unclear. (Is there mean't to be one)The latter has partial pathways but a potential exit onto Holdingham Lane, near the entrance to Winchester Way(pedestrian), is unclear.  There are several issues to resolve here. 

I took a few photographs the other day. Here they are: 

 View Towards Exit to Holdingham Lane and (right) adjacent Open Space.

 Holdingham Lane view to Holdingham Grange and entry to Winchester Way and (below) down Holdingham Lane from the same spot. And extreme bottom (below) is an "old" photo (but still relevant) of the entrance to Holdingham Grange (which has still not been addressed)

Reviving our Assets: in Holdingham & Sleaford

Sleaford Town Council has several groups (called Panels) looking after Services and the Assets it has. But the Assets need renewal and looking after. All play areas are annually inspected and defects are addressed. Clearly there is a cost to all this - costs which compete against other Town Priorities. 

Over the last week: and reported back to Council on Wednesday, several Councillors have visited the Cemetery and our 3 largest Open Spaces/Play Areas. The Open Spaces were Woodside; George Street and Boston Road.

Maintaining and renewing fencing is one issue: providing equipment that residents want is another: making them secure and vandal free is another: and accessible is another. Obvious really but it is not necessarily so.

But all the facilities mentioned above have possible shortcomings. Access to the Cemetery at the times of day (including school start and leave times near the Cemetery) can be impaired by Cars parked in the Cemetery.

Secure fencing at our Open Spaces! George Street (for instance): the new Housing development near the Castle Causeway means Children wanting to use the Play Area. So an access point that is not misused by motor-bikers etc.

Woodside has poor access and is potentially open to illegal entry across the property of others.

So investment is needed to meet these shortcomings.

Here are some Photographs.

George Street entrance near the new houses. Needs upgrading and issues to be resolved.


Fencing on the George Street boundary.

At Woodside the ad-hoc entrance from Summerfield Drive is not secure.

Access from Beech Rise (see below)  is a long way from other residential areas in Holdingham and other gates are needed for Children. Entry at the end of Summerfield Drive is misused as it is not an official entry point as it crosses the land of others: the legit entry point is the narrow/muddy path off Summerfield Court.

The Summerfield Drive entrance is used and misused because of lack of fencing in one key part.

 All areas need to be secure from Vandalism and anti- social behaviour 24 hours. That potentially is a costly exercise with apparently rising A.S.B. So there is much to do and much to spend money on.

Our largest area

is of course Boston Road and the largest recent investment is the Skate Park. The phioto is from March 20117 when the new facility was being constructed. It is now ready for its Official Opening.  It needs looking after and protecting from Vandalism. But, and a repeat from above, it costs and there are other needs in the Town.

Sleaford Town Council Response: Commercial Anaerobic Digestor Plant at Holdingham.

Further to my Blog dated 3rd July 2017 I can report that the Sleaford Town Council has submitted its reply to the proposal.

 I can confirm that we have based our advice note on a review of the following documents:

• Planning Application Supporting Information (The Greenspan Agency, 9 May 2017);
• Odour Management Plan (The Greenspan Agency, 5 July 2017);
• Consultation responses available on the County Council’s online portal at 18 July 2017.

Regard is also had to the planning history of this site and our previous letter of advice to the Town Council dated 24 June 2014.

As with all applications of this nature the applicant will be expected to demonstrate that the proposals will have no adverse environmental impacts and / or lead to the loss of residential amenity. It is our professional opinion that the information to submitted to date is ‘thin on the ground’ and leaves a number of fundamental issues unanswered. Whilst we acknowledge that the applicant has provided an additional Odour Management Plan (dated 5 July 2017) we would recommend that the Town Council make the following observations.

Vehicle Movements

One of our principal concern relates to a general lack of information in relation to vehicle movements and traffic generation. Whilst is accepted that the junction serving the site may be operating under design capacity – as stated by the applicant in Para 7.2 of the Planning Application Supporting Information document – little information has been provided in relation to the exact nature of the anticipated highway movements. The applicant states that “vehicle movements to and from the site are not expected to change as a consequence of this current application to allow a broader range of feedstocks” yet no evidence is provided to substantiate this claim. Even if this assertion is accepted, the timings and frequency of vehicle movements needs to be considered. For example, will movements be dispersed throughout the day or will movements be concentrated in peak am and pm periods? We are aware that the highways authority have no raised no objection to the development (19 June), however, we would maintain that it is not possible to fully assess the likely highways impact of the change in operation practices without detailed information provided by the applicant. We would therefore recommend that the Town Council request that a Transport Assessment is provided by the applicant and that the Town Council reserves the right to make further representations on the content of that particular document.

Odour Management

It is acknowledged that the applicant has sought to provide further information in the form of an Odour Management Plan dated 5 July. That document states that the applicant has sought to remove condition no. 7 of the previous planning permission states the following:

No development shall commence until an odour management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The plan shall detail how, where and when odour from the development hereby permitted will be measured post-operation, who will be responsible for this, the method of assessing the results of odour measurement  and any required  mitigation measures.. The odour management plan shall include a procedure for recording and addressing any odour complaints received. Thereafter the approved plan shall be implemented and maintained in perpetuity.                                   

                               

Reason: In the interests of reducing odour pollution to protect the amenity of the area in accordance with saved Policy C17 of the Local Plan

The applicant argues that the condition is not necessary as safeguards in terms of odour are in place through separate environmental permits which fall outside of the Town and Country Planning Acts. However, we would advise that the Town Council strongly contest the removal of such a condition as it removes the ability of the Council’s enforcement team to take action should the requirements of the condition and approved odour management plan be breached.

Turning to the current application, we have concerns about the short term nature of the odour management plan which appears to be overly dismissive of potential odours which may emerge outside the first 12 months of operation (see Para 2.2).  We are also aware that Leasingham and Roxholme Parish Council have expressed concerns in relation to the validity of some of the conclusions reached in that report. At the time of writing there does not appear to be any consultation response from the following consultees:

• Environment Agency;
• Environmental Health Officer; and,
• LCC Public Health Officer;

As the Odour Management Plan is a specialist technical document its content can realistically only be adequately understood (and challenged if necessary) by a suitably qualified individual and we would suggest that the Town Council ensure that comments are received by all the 3 of the above consultees before the application is determined – particularly the Environment Agency.

Can the Neighbourhood Plan for Sleaford improve matters?

Are we still going over the same issues? One reason I ask is that Consultants advised the Town, to my understanding, that having an accepted Neighbourhood Plan would entitle the Town to 25% of the revenues generated through the CIL raised. Which developments are we talking about? 

I went to the Public Meeting relating to the Sleaford (and Kirkby La Thorpe) at the Sleaford Town Council (using their downstairs rooms).

Quite a useful meeting and some good speakers from interested Residents. 

To a background noise of Pop Music coming from across the way (from the Hub maybe) I recorded two parts: part 1 was about Health Facilities (or lack of them) and Part 2 was a mix of Transport/communication problems and other issues all relating to the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. 

This is the message I have put out on Facebook with links to Youtube.

A public meeting was held last night about the Sleaford Neighbourhood Plan. I took two videos (as yet unedited) and the links are below. The first part about Health and the second part about Planning, Transport and other issues. Sorry about the background music which was coming from a session at the Hub. 

https://youtu.be/Fi4Inb7hffw
https://youtu.be/khIjPEO-ekQ

Holdingham Letter: To change the use from Agri-Based Anaerobic Digestion Facility

I received a letter today from LCC to inform me (as someone who has written in the past) about changes to the use of the Anaerobic Digestion Facility.  The proposal is for it to become a Commercial Anaerobic Digestion Facility. 

A copy of the letter is provided below. I have also been to see  the Site Manager at the Persimmons Holdingham Grange building site where 250 or more houses are being built. If there are any adverse effects from this change then it might impact on the new development. They have written to their Head Office. 

It depends on who you listen to. Any comments I have are to be given by 21st July 2017.

Recreation Ground Boston Road! Will proposals help regenerate Sleaford: and how will it affect Holdingham?

The initial answer is "watch this space". However, one outcome, hopefully and in the long term, will be to decrease the congestion on the Lincoln Road especially at peak times. 

Update: The Sleaford Town Council debated two main issues relating to Boston Road on Wednesday 5th July. Firstly about Bikers using the Rec once per month and secondly the public comments/reaction to the proposed access to Boston Road from the Advanta Seeds site. The link to the Youtube recording of that part of the meeting is HERE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly there was a short mention of it  (the talks with Tesco by STC) at last weeks Council Meeting (21st June). 

This was at Agenda Item 14.2 and was recorded. 

However I have attached, as a link at the end, a Radio Interview back in 2013, on Radio Lincolnshire, between the Mayor (at the time), and our present County Councillor (Kate Cook). 

The YouTube Link is at: Boston Road Site Access. 

How times have changed. (Hopefully). Some trees have been marked, presumably those under threat,  but they relate (to my knowledge) what was proposed at the time of the CPO (2014/2015). 

Holdingham Biogas. Back round the loop.

Post note: The matter was discussed at the Sleaford Town Council on 21st June 2017. This in reference to the Planning Addition listed below. Leasingham Residents were there and Holdingham Town Councillors spoke on the subject. Steve Flanagan spoke for the residents. The Sleaford Standard (who were at the meeting) has also reported it. An updated Standard report is here

The Debate is on Youtube.

The Sleaford Standard has put the story out today (26th June): Standard

 It is a bit like a rerun of an old movie. The  Chicken Farm idea was thrown out but the Anaerobic Digestor (AD) Plant was passed - and built. The inputs to the AD appear to have fallen short: read on.

The Facebook CUG Anti Anaerobic Digestor Forum has protested about these developments  and effectively won the argument (with the aid of the Planning Inspectorate) to get the 590,000 Chicken Farm stopped. Now  the AG issue has reappeared because they want to increase  the range of materials to be used (to feed the AD).

"Here is the link: The Plan is at the following address ( you may need the number PL/0071/17):

http://eplanning.lincolnshire.gov.uk/ePlanning/searchPageLoad.do

Online Planning Applications - Lincolnshire County Council

Environment and Safety - Planning and Development - Online Planning Applications

eplanning.lincolnshire.gov.uk" The Planning Number is PL/0071/17.

Kids Play Equipment: Lincoln Road; Holdingham; Sleaford

Wear and Tear or Vandalism?

The Town Clerk mentioned to me about having to remove a piece of Play Equipment in the KId(ies) area on the Lincoln Road Play Area. 

Whetr or not it was vandalism ot wear and tear is hard for me to judge. The inference was that it is due to damage. 

Here are two photographs. It is a pity as the play area is used frequently (weather permitting). 

Holdingham Woodside Trees Growing well

I took photos of the trees (1st June) on the official first day of summer. The weather has varied but has been sufficiently wet (and relatively warm)!!!

I couldn't see any damaged trees the (in June) apart from one or two hanging branches that could easily have happened naturally due to wind and the weight of growth. Nice to see a number of kids playing in the field and on the play equipment.

Update: 

These photographs were taken on September 23rd 2017. All surviving.

New Sleaford Mayor

Plenty in the local press about resignations from the Sleaford Town Council.  

But what about our new Mayor (or is that Mayoress). Or Chairperson? It is explained at the recent Annual Meeting of the Town Council. 

Video footage is available on Youtube. 

Town Polls: have views changed in Holdingham and Sleaford?

I was browsing through Blog posts written years ago - at the time during and before the debates about Compulsory Purchase Orders and Closure of the Station Gates. 

It is interesting as the 2005 poll provided a complex result. This was about have road through part of the Boston Road Recreation Ground.

The second, in 2011, was about the issue of closing the Station gates on Southgate. The second I remember well due to the queues of people trying to vote at the Jolly Scotchman but some being turned away (they had either come to the wrong polling station or maybe were not eligible). Polling cards had not been issued and the Polling Station (3 in total) were only open from 1600 hr to
2100 hr.

Anyway here are the results that I logged at the time>

Boston Road Poll Results: 17 November 2005

The full poll results were: The votes have been counted in the Sleaford Parish Poll, which was held on Thursday 17 November 2005.

Q1. Are you in favour of a road being constructed across Boston Road Recreation Ground now or at any time in the future?

YES = 1,438

NO = 1,351

Q2. Are you in favour of retaining Boston road recreation ground as a recreation ground, now and in the future?

YES = 2,250

NO = 386

Station Gate Poll: May 19th 2011

The Poll, asking residents if they approved or disapproved of the proposal to close the Station Gates, was as follows:

YES (approve): 200 (8.1%); NO (disapprove): 2,274 (91.9%).

Note: There were queues at the Jolly Scotchman and the 2 other Polling Stations.  Some were turned away as they had come to the wrong polling station.  

The 3 Polling Stations were open from 1600 hr to 2100 hr. (Polling Cards had not been issued).

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will we need to return to these findings and perhaps try again. U cannot believe the issue has gone away forever.

Sleaford: One Poll Down & One to go! Where are the voters?

Post note: Lots of comparisons are coming up about the December by-election. Some are on Facebook and it looks as though some Candidates will be standing this time. 

Guardian Video about Sleaford: Lincs Independent Interview 2016 (not yet confirmed for June 8th). Also poll Count December 8/9 2016

I went to the Jolly Scotchman yesterday afternoon to cast my vote. There were quite a few election posters on the Lincoln  Road.

 They couldn't be seen from the Jolly Scotchman entrance so I think that is OK - as the rules stand. However I did point it out at the Polling Station!

The results are on the LCC web-site and were covered in the Local and National media as well as Twitter and Facebook. Sleaford turnout was, once again in my view, disappointing (28%) on a fine day.

LCC Results. BBC Result

There are many issues in Sleaford (and Holdingham) that have been mentioned in my Blog posts. Traffic congestion will get worse - especially at school arriving and going home times. Places like the Cemetery entrance gets blocked for a while as cars park there.  The photo below is how it ought to be - but sadly at times not so.

The next step is to see if the same pattern is repeated on June 8th. Hopefully our turnout at Sleaford will be much higher.

  

Elections, Elections: where and for what will the Holdingham Sleaford Residents Vote?

In the past (recent times) it has only been the Jolly Scotchman - certainly for  local elections. Before that, and in General Elections we had more than one. 

I do remember voting at the Methodist Church and was aware also that the mini-Community Centre (Communal Centre/Bungalow) (if that is the right word) in Greenfield Road. This time round, for the General Election on June 8th and the County Council Elections on May 4th I am not too sure. Certainly the Jolly Scotchman (even if only an outside Porta Cabin) will be one.

Anyway it will be interesting to see if the turn-out in the Sleaford and North Hykeham area is above the 37%  turnout achieved at the By-Election December 2016. That, I thought, was not a good turnout given all the coverage (Locally and Nationally) it got.

It is often a choice of using National Polls to express dissatisfaction with local issues or looking to a wider picture. Will plans for massive expansion and impact on Services and transport problems predominate over say the Brexit outlook (whatever Brexit means in practice)

Many Party top brass came to the area. 

The local press has issued a release suggesting that (at this stage) only the sitting MP has declared that she will stand. It will be interesting as maybe one or two potential candidates are putting up for the County Council  Elections in May. 

General Election Sleaford & North Hykeham  

Previous election results are at: Wikipaedia

Sleaford Town Council Meeting: 12th April 2017 - Holdingham aspects!!

A video recording has been done for the Sleaford Town Council meeting of April 12th.

Some parts of the items recording had a bearing on Holdingham.

Woodside Play Area/Open Space  and the Lincoln Road play area. I have, in the past put many posts on this Blog relating to these areas. However there has been a marked improvement and increase in the use of the facilities: aided by the Easter Holidays and generally mild and warm weather we have had.

The Annotated video of the Town Council meeting is on (click here) YouTube!