Powered by Fleet News and Mail Online

6/4/2007
Letters

Depot scheme is a trade-off I cannot accept

Your comment in last week’s News, entitled ‘Everybody must have their say on the Pyestock scheme’, was either a deliberate attempt to ignite some public debate or sadly ill-informed. You state that the “developers have amended their plans beyond all recognition”.

As far as I am aware the latest submission has not yet been registered by Hart District Council and is not available for public scrutiny.

The development will create jobs but the majority of them are low-skill, low-paid employment. Recently published figures for unemployment in Hart and Rushmoor showed exceptionally low levels, well below 1,600.

Advertisementyour story continues below

The general level of salaries in the distribution business will not pay local mortgages or rents and potentially put an even greater strain on the affordable housing market in this area. These jobs will likely create more inbound commuting.

As to the £3.5million invested in the areas highway network, the majority of that money will go to either develop the access road to the site or to convert the roundabout in Minley Link Road into a ‘signalised traffic junction’ to improve the geometry for heavy goods vehicle manoeuvrability, or add a roundabout in the middle of the new Ively Road to allow worker access on to the site separate from lorry access off Summit Avenue.

The developer has never performed a traffic accident assessment (as was done in an earlier application by Qinetiq) so it cannot be said that these self-serving works improve road safety one iota.

Balance these works against the addition of around 2,000 HGV and car movements per day and can it be said to be a ‘plus’?

The developers, in their press release, have indicated that their revisions to the scheme are those displayed at the ‘exhibition’ last June.

You only need to go to the council’s planning website and see how many letters of objection were submitted after the exhibition to get a sense of what the public are saying.

People will accept development where there is some trade-off. The residents of Hart and Rushmoor lived with the noise and occasional smells from the Pyestock site when it was a research base and deemed to be in the national interest.

Being asked to endure 24 hours a day, seven days a week traffic with its associated noise and air quality implications for the sake of leading high street chain stores — sorry, that is not a trade-off I am prepared to make. And should we all not start to be really concerned for our planet and cut down the total carbon emissions it takes to deliver our food and consumer goods?

Bob Schofield
Guildford Road
Fleet

First printed in: Aldershot News and Mail

Other Letters
Fight hard if you are opposing a developmentAlternate week bin collections trial is an ordealLibrary cuts of £1m are not an investmentWe’ve heard all the Aldershot talk beforeYes, please focus on our hospitals Gordon BrownTown is slowly being driven into the groundHelp improve the quality of life for home’s residentsOur faith in QEB inspector already dashedThanks to man who came to mother's rescueIt's too late to rescue our rundown townBarracks site minitown needs its own surgeryHospital is actually one of the safest in the countryWho are they trying to fool now over Galleries fiasco?Bingo is much needed and far from a mindless gameCouncil's majority party can actually be defeated at the pollsMP wrong about borough’s affordable housing recordImproved sex education must be a priorityJoin the brown envelope protest at tax increasesCompensation would ease effect of extra flightsMake easy cuts to pay for CCTVNoise can cause serious stress problemsDepot scheme is a trade-off I cannot acceptPoints without having a licence are not logicalBridge story sounds like an April FoolGurkhas have earned the right to equal respectLeisure centre is made dirty by people who use itOne way to cut costs is to reduce collection timeMP should be grateful that we have the GurkhasPetition the Prime Minister for fairer Gurkha pensionsGolf course trees will grow slower than envisagedLack of parking will put pressure on neighboursThanks for your support of the glorious GurkhasAn expensive report that will end up gathering dustGraffiti swastika offensive in Home of the British ArmyMPs expenses are tiny compared with workloadNHS reforms need more consultation and more timeBoard of experts to run council is a brilliant ideaThere is no real alternative to this vital link roadPlease press for review of town's crazy parkingFatal combination that has spawned ineffective councilThere are also plenty of positives in the districtExtra flights will bring benefits for FarnboroughI would love to live on the edge of the airportAbolishing free parking amounts to a gross betrayalI do not want a huge airport on my doorstepSilent majority has no problem with extra flyingTAG appeal will ensure maximum fairness all roundFrimley Park has the solution to parking problemAppeal is all about rich and powerful greedy for moreMy joint interests with MP are not commercialSo, does our MP provide us with a 'junk' service?NHS experts must give us realistic options for futureYes, judges should be tough on speedingVillage needs recycling centre at supermarketTraffic problems in rat-run lane getting worseNo, commercial waste does not get a subsidyCouncillors seem unable to take tough actionWidening tracks the only way to improve railwaysHospital parking problem could get even worseLib Dems have a plan to save post officesUnitary county article ignored important issuesEmpty office sites could be made available for housingAWC subsidies commercial waste going to landfillStation's neighbours suffer from shortage of parking spacesTown badly needs a minor injuries unitThe planning process is so frustratingWhat does the county do with our money?
Letters Archive
Browse older items in our Readers' Letters Archive