1. In the minutes for your 10th April 2019, Full Council Meeting it states that 'A formal complaint has been submitted to Royal Mail concerning the re-occurrent loss and late arrival of post. This issue has been occurring intermittently over the past few months.' Could this procedure be re-enacted? Residents of the closes off Woolhampton Way and those residing on Woolhampton Way are still having a similar Royal Mail postal service problem. Read more here:
https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/17415727.missing-mail-angers-chigwell-residents-face-six-months-misdirected-missing-post/
It may well be the last minuted reference on the Royal Mail issue was based on the article I triggered above.
2. In the minutes of your 21st November 2019 and 12th December 2019 Full Council Meeting, a member of the public called for Bicycle Storage facilities in the Parish, though acknowledged, nothing has been done to progress the matter. The deficit of storage in our centres of high footfall and LUL/train stations is a glaring climate change faux-pas. Can this and other measures such as the introduction of vehicle electrical charging points be given more priority?
3. Local residents have asked whether the speed camera on Romford Road nearby the junction of Hainault Road could be brought backwards to a location before Woolhampton Way? This would help those turning into Woolhampton Way by reducing pushy drivers. If it is movable, could speed restrictions be reduced to 30mph for the same reason?
4. Due to an increase in antisocial parking during events at Hainault Country Park in Redbridge, residents of Chigwell Row at Woolhampton Way, Daylop Drive, Ingleby Way, Sylvan Way and Glebelands Way, are seeking the introduction of event day parking restrictions (similar to those around football grounds and stadiums across the country). This will hopefully encourage more visitors to use the event day buses that operators have begun to hire following our campaigning.
5. Chigwell Row Residents Association are pleased with the recent repairs to Pudding Lane a very well-used B road, but more has to be done.
- Bushes on the sides must be trimmed more regularly as avoiding branches pushes cars dangerously close on a very narrow road. My car and others have been badly scratched when avoiding wider vehicles.
- A vehicle width-restriction has to be placed on the road for reasons above, and because the larger vehicles cause huge delays on the road and are the main cause of accidents. See image in this link:
- https://chigwellrowcommunity.blogspot.com/2020/02/van-stuck-in-ditch-tree-blocking-one.html
- In certain areas the side of the road has a deep trench creating a small cliff edge that wider vehicles and unsuspecting smaller vehicle fall into tipping vehicles over. Can this be filled in? It is the cause of a large number of reported accidents on the road (as is trying to avoid it which leads to crashes).
- The road is extremely well-used and should be included on the annual gritting programme, especially when you consider the number of winter accidents on Pudding Lane (5 car accidents were recorded on Saturday 4th January alone - fortunately injuries were minor).
- Making the road one way or widening the road should be considered especially as the road is a popular shortcut to the M11 and several schools either way.
6. Is it possible to enact a similar strategic overview for the area of Lambourne Road from the disused Maypole Pub to Chigwell Row Infants School. When shops are in operation around school opening and closing times local people have complained of how restricted and dangerous the road become. The pavement has been cut away to allow for parking on one side but not the other and double parking creates a bottleneck. Adoption of a 20mph zone for that section of the road would make it safer for school users at Chigwell Infants school and may encourage more walking to school.
7. Having read-up all your full council meetings since 2015, I am alarmed that CRA seem adamant that the yellow-bus is of no use. Though not attached to your 8th May 2019 Full Council Minutes on your website, It seems that every piece of evidenced provided by EFCT suggests the Yellow bus is well used. I know that a member of CRA suggested that other projects are more worthy of the budget used for the buses, but the community disagrees. The £800,000 that could be derived from the S106 budget through development of Chigwell Infant schools would meet many years of the proposed yellow bus route. Can you confirm that the Parish Council will do everything they can to make sure EFDC grants us this money? Moreover, can we have a guarantee from the council that the proposed Section 22 period (pay for service) will be contracted as a temporary measure? I feel this will force EFDC to pay the Section 106 money more willingly. Could I ask that it is reiterated in our local council newsletter that this Section 106 money could be lost to the council if we terminate the bus service? My understanding is that this is because it was only applied for on that basis
8. There is a lot of scaremongering going on regarding the use of the bus and its worth to the borough. One group is attempting to undermine the service by claiming that the usage does not warrant continuation. Can you please upload the empirical data provided by EFCT on your website (especially to 8th May 2019 minutes)?
9. Is it correct that if the Parish Council disbands the bus service we lose all access to the S106 agreement with Chigwell Primary School? Would the most likely use in this scenario be an Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) social housing project?
10. Can Councillors confirm that if the proposed pay-for service offered by EFCT is accepted now, that they would do everything possible to ensure that EFDC commits to releasing the £800,000 S106 agreement funds to return to a free bus service.
11. With the decision to not pursue the Neighbourhood Plan last year by current councillors, doe that essentially mean that any EFDC housing project would be led by them with little or no input or say from the Parish Council?
12. What exactly is causing delay to the planning application approval at EF District Council for Chigwell Primary School, since it was recommended by Parish Council in March this year?
13. Could it be suggested that EFDC have intentionally delayed planning approval for Chigwell Primary School, to create the current unstable situation we now face regarding the yellow buses. If that is possible would this suggest that EFDC is pursuing an aggressive social housing programme in which Chigwell residents will be the victims?
14. I am not sure how the council pays for their funded school transport for students entitled to free transport, however would the yellow bus potentially be paid directly by Essex County Council for any school provision.
15. Currently children from Chigwell Row attending West Hatch use the yellow bus which is the catchment school but has journeys in excess of 3 miles. What provision would be put on for local residents if the yellow bus was terminated? At what cost?
16. The last mention of a borough snow plough that was sitting idle in the cemetery was on the 18th May 2019. Earlier investigations noted in full council meetings indicated the equipment was incompatible with any vehicle. Considering the difficult snow we had last year and in other recent years is it possible to buy a snow plough to ensure safety on roads like Pudding Lane that recorded 5 accidents in only one day (which was not the only day of snow-related accidents).
17. Can the potholes at the top of Lambourne Close and Raymond Close (at junction with Lambourne Road) be repaired. they are a health hazard to the many people forced to avoid them while traversing across Lambourne Road.
18. Can Parish council explain who has placed cones along Lambourne Road on the opposite side to the shops? They have been there for some time and no locals seem to know who is responsible.
A Freedom of Information Request was also sent to Ian Ansell at Epping Forests District Council:
Dear Mr Ansell,
RE:FOI request regarding Section 106 approval.
Chigwell Parish Council approved a planning application for Chigwell Primary Academy (EPF/1681/19) back in March 2020. We have been informed that Epping Forest District Council have not yet approved the Section 106 Agreement for £800,000 which should be funding our Parish yellow bus service.
I would like to know:
1. How long an average decision by EFDC during the last three years regarding such approval took.
2. Why it has taken EFDC so long with negotiations on this particular case.
3. when we can expect a decision
An Email was also sent to Essex County Council Transport Development Team:
Dear sir,
RE: Options for freedom pass holders and those entitled to free school transport when Chigwell yellow bus becomes pay-for-service.
Is Essex County Council aware of the impending loss of a free yellow bus service in Chigwell, that was originally set up and funded by the Parish Council.
Though the buses are owned by the Parish Council, it would seem that Section 106 agreements funds that have not materialised thus far, due to unreasonable delay with an application by Epping Forest District Council has meant the service will become a pay-for-service from 8th October 2020.
Will Essex County Council then pay the yellow bus service fees for free school transport entitled children and freedom pass users, who have become dependent on this bus over the last two years.
There is no other bus service that runs from within Chigwell Row to West Hatch and to many other schools.
Please could you advise us on this matter.
Comments
Post a Comment