Hagley campaigners turn up the heat on MP after losing Cala Homes battle

Bromsgrove MP Sajid Javid is feeling the heat from Hagley Action Group

Bromsgrove MP Sajid Javid is feeling the heat from Hagley Action Group

First published in News

HAGLEY protestors are turning up the heat on their MP after losing their battle against a controversial housing development.

Following a vote by Tory-led Bromsgrove District Council to approve plans for 175 homes on a site on Kidderminster Road, Hagley Action Group is demanding answers on why their arguments were rejected.

The group has written to Bromsgrove's Conservative MP Sajid Javid insisting on his support and help after they say they were "kicked in the teeth" by local democracy.

In the letter, campaign leader Francesca Evans, said: "I voted for your party because I am passionate about local issues and being able to influence the things that matter to me - my community, my kids schools, our local health and safety."

She is demanding and explanation from the MP of the Localism Act 2011, which promises to "give local communities more control over housing and planning decisions."

Francesca Evans told Mr Javid: "I feel completely betrayed because this was the only policy quite frankly I understood and believed in - this is what stood out.

"You stood outside my son's primary school giving out flyers about this very issue. I know you believe you have supported us but an open letter to the local press is not enough to win Hagley voters onto your side."

Sajid Javid said: "The depth of local opposition to Cala Homes’ proposal is very clear to me, and I know how long and hard Hagley residents have fought this development.

"In representing their views, I have done all that I can to make sure that my constituents’ concerns have been aired and considered robustly at all stages of the application process.

"I have repeatedly made the points that residents have raised with me to the district council. I have conveyed these views and concerns, along with my own, to the relevant officials in order to emphasize the depth of local opposition to Cala Homes’ proposal.

"The Localism Act means that planning decisions are taken at the lowest level possible, rather than being imposed from the top down. This, though, does not mean that residents and individuals now have the direct power themselves to accept or reject planning applications.

"Concerns over local services in Hagley are, of course, entirely reasonable and legitimate. I have discussed this issue with officials and the leaders of both Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council on numerous occasions, and I have been assured that supply will meet demand.

"I have contacted both BDC and WCC for further information to reassure me and others that additional demand on local services will be satisfied.”

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:53pm Thu 17 Jan 13

ozpat says...

Heres your answer Francesca:

"Concerns over local services in Hagley are, of course, entirely reasonable and legitimate. I have discussed this issue with officials and the leaders of both Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council on numerous occasions, and I have been assured that supply will meet demand."
also stated,
"In representing their views, I have done all that I can to make sure that my constituents’ concerns have been aired and considered robustly at all stages of the application process"

As quoted above by your local MP Mr Sajid Javid.

That is called due democratic process
in action. Could you clarify which process you would prefer that can best serve your agenda, if democracy is not good enough for you.
Heres your answer Francesca: "Concerns over local services in Hagley are, of course, entirely reasonable and legitimate. I have discussed this issue with officials and the leaders of both Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council on numerous occasions, and I have been assured that supply will meet demand." also stated, "In representing their views, I have done all that I can to make sure that my constituents’ concerns have been aired and considered robustly at all stages of the application process" As quoted above by your local MP Mr Sajid Javid. That is called due democratic process in action. Could you clarify which process you would prefer that can best serve your agenda, if democracy is not good enough for you. ozpat
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Thu 17 Jan 13

frandroid says...

Dear Ozpat,

I am in the unfortunate position where I envy you for your beliefs. I wish I still believed in the democratic process.

Many local residents, Nimbys as you persist in calling us all around the country feel this way - not just in our village. Can you answer why the majority of the people (that I have taken a lot of time and effort to engage with) believe that the whole thing was a 'done deal' - I quote many people on this, too numerous to mention, - I don't think that I am exaggerating when I say that the average village citizen has no faith in the system and that is a fact and that is a sorry state of affairs.

You can obviously go round with a clipboard round 4,000 homes as our action group did to corroborate this. That is their belief, it wasn't mine until that Monday night, I told people it wasn't the case that they should put their faith in the system - but this is ironic as it was my own faith that was somewhat shaken on Monday night. This is my personal belief, I am not a planning expert, a legal expert or a politician, I am just a person who has great affection for the village I grew up in and have chosen to come back to in order to raise my kids.

So I guess I would prefer a different version of democracy - one where politicians made it clear what their stance was on key issues that couldn't be manipulated or twisted in any way and held accountable to keep them. This would filter all the way down to local issues where referendums could be held on contentious issues giving the vote to the majority and would remain apolitical. In the future i would like to see local councillors operate on an independent basis with more emphasis on supporting local issues and improving communications skills. This would mean I could go back to my relatively obscure life and have more time to support my family.

I hope that clarifies my position, I only wonder why you feel entitled to ask me for clarification when you remain anonymous.
Dear Ozpat, I am in the unfortunate position where I envy you for your beliefs. I wish I still believed in the democratic process. Many local residents, Nimbys as you persist in calling us all around the country feel this way - not just in our village. Can you answer why the majority of the people (that I have taken a lot of time and effort to engage with) believe that the whole thing was a 'done deal' - I quote many people on this, too numerous to mention, - I don't think that I am exaggerating when I say that the average village citizen has no faith in the system and that is a fact and that is a sorry state of affairs. You can obviously go round with a clipboard round 4,000 homes as our action group did to corroborate this. That is their belief, it wasn't mine until that Monday night, I told people it wasn't the case that they should put their faith in the system - but this is ironic as it was my own faith that was somewhat shaken on Monday night. This is my personal belief, I am not a planning expert, a legal expert or a politician, I am just a person who has great affection for the village I grew up in and have chosen to come back to in order to raise my kids. So I guess I would prefer a different version of democracy - one where politicians made it clear what their stance was on key issues that couldn't be manipulated or twisted in any way and held accountable to keep them. This would filter all the way down to local issues where referendums could be held on contentious issues giving the vote to the majority and would remain apolitical. In the future i would like to see local councillors operate on an independent basis with more emphasis on supporting local issues and improving communications skills. This would mean I could go back to my relatively obscure life and have more time to support my family. I hope that clarifies my position, I only wonder why you feel entitled to ask me for clarification when you remain anonymous. frandroid
  • Score: 0

8:46am Fri 18 Jan 13

The Villan says...

Here we go again.......

In the blue corner we have Frandroid, passionate about her village and sponsored by the residents.....

In the red corner we have Ozpat, plays the devil's advocate and sponsored by Foster's ........

DING! DING! round 5?
Here we go again....... In the blue corner we have Frandroid, passionate about her village and sponsored by the residents..... In the red corner we have Ozpat, plays the devil's advocate and sponsored by Foster's ........ DING! DING! round 5? The Villan
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Respectable says...

WHY is this development constantly referred to as "Controversial"... ?
It's not controversial when compared to developments everywhere else.
It's just "Unpopular" with the existing residents.
As with all developments there will be supporters and protesters, landowners will make some money and guess what.... So will the House Builders. That's what drives our economy isn't it ?
WHY is this development constantly referred to as "Controversial"... ? It's not controversial when compared to developments everywhere else. It's just "Unpopular" with the existing residents. As with all developments there will be supporters and protesters, landowners will make some money and guess what.... So will the House Builders. That's what drives our economy isn't it ? Respectable
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Fri 18 Jan 13

ozpat says...

That is absolutely right Respectable! Controversy, no I don't think so, just a collection of likeminded individuals hell bent on maintaining their socioeconomic status by hiding behind "environmental issues" dreamt up out of shear desperation to maintain their status quo. I draw your attention to the fact that since the planning decision went in favour of the build how the protestors have turned against the decision by stating the whole process was unfair, democratic process not being good enough, and the focus on "Hell Island"
what is controversial is their inability to accept what was clearly an inevitability from the outset.
Just on a side issue...............
..
(I am apparently demonstrating anonymity by the cunning use of a "username", I take it then that "Frandroid" is your given name and indeed not a username, very creative)
That is absolutely right Respectable! Controversy, no I don't think so, just a collection of likeminded individuals hell bent on maintaining their socioeconomic status by hiding behind "environmental issues" dreamt up out of shear desperation to maintain their status quo. I draw your attention to the fact that since the planning decision went in favour of the build how the protestors have turned against the decision by stating the whole process was unfair, democratic process not being good enough, and the focus on "Hell Island" what is controversial is their inability to accept what was clearly an inevitability from the outset. Just on a side issue............... .. (I am apparently demonstrating anonymity by the cunning use of a "username", I take it then that "Frandroid" is your given name and indeed not a username, very creative) ozpat
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Mon 21 Jan 13

frandroid says...

We really haven't made up the environmental issues - we didn't have to. You can choose to ignore them though, it is easier than worrying about something you don't think we can change - this campaign by the Independent does at acknowledge that there is an issue. http://blogs.indepen
dent.co.uk/2013/01/2
1/how-clean-is-your-
air/ - food for thought anyway.
Obviously there are other issues to this development hence the 'controversy'. Or non-controversy in some people's opinion, I appreciate its all relative - if I lived in another area I might find there were other issues more at stake.
Despite what you may think we are not hellbent at all and open to people contacting the residents group and providing their knowledge and insights if they feel they have some to offer.
We really haven't made up the environmental issues - we didn't have to. You can choose to ignore them though, it is easier than worrying about something you don't think we can change - this campaign by the Independent does at acknowledge that there is an issue. http://blogs.indepen dent.co.uk/2013/01/2 1/how-clean-is-your- air/ - food for thought anyway. Obviously there are other issues to this development hence the 'controversy'. Or non-controversy in some people's opinion, I appreciate its all relative - if I lived in another area I might find there were other issues more at stake. Despite what you may think we are not hellbent at all and open to people contacting the residents group and providing their knowledge and insights if they feel they have some to offer. frandroid
  • Score: 0

5:51am Tue 22 Jan 13

ozpat says...

Every environmental point has been investigated, researched and adequately answered. The proposal is within the criteria set out by the planning department, environmental agencies and and all stakeholders, the proposal meets and indeed in some instances exceeds the set criteria. I can not see how protesting an already failed point is going to make any difference to the democratically decided outcome.
Every environmental point has been investigated, researched and adequately answered. The proposal is within the criteria set out by the planning department, environmental agencies and and all stakeholders, the proposal meets and indeed in some instances exceeds the set criteria. I can not see how protesting an already failed point is going to make any difference to the democratically decided outcome. ozpat
  • Score: 0

10:08am Tue 22 Jan 13

frandroid says...

Surely the whole point of a democracy is so that people can make their opinions and feelings known?

Just because there has been an outcome doesn't mean that all questions have been answered.

If anything I think that the planning meeting actually raised a lot of new points. The potential transformation of a village into a town is not going to be settled in one meeting or be an easy defined process. I still don't feel residents have been provided with a clear picture of what is going on or have been reassured and am simply seeking answers.
Surely the whole point of a democracy is so that people can make their opinions and feelings known? Just because there has been an outcome doesn't mean that all questions have been answered. If anything I think that the planning meeting actually raised a lot of new points. The potential transformation of a village into a town is not going to be settled in one meeting or be an easy defined process. I still don't feel residents have been provided with a clear picture of what is going on or have been reassured and am simply seeking answers. frandroid
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree