Councillors for Seaburn '˜need to get their act together'

Having been involved in the consultation process (objector without sway or political connection) regarding the proposed development of Seaburn by Siglion, I am mindful of the concerns raised by Frank Hunter in his recent letter, and the response thereto by councillor Margaret Beck on December 31.

Thursday, 17th January 2019, 10:32 am
Updated Thursday, 17th January 2019, 10:34 am

Before addressing the issues concerning outline planning permission, the main areas of contention are those relating to the overall proposal for development.

As it stands, the proposal portrays a heavy concentration of development within a confined area, restricting open space for recreation which should remain a priority in any future strategy.

Parking facilities will be severely restricted and serious congestion will result.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

I expressed these concerns at meetings and was the subject of my letter of Wednesday, April 13, 2016.

It is projected that 279 houses will coincide with the proposal defined as a “mixed development” by Siglion executive.

The reason why the project is so structured is that housing is prerequisite to further enterprise consisting of leisure facilities.

The inference being that the lucrative option of housing needs to be secured before subsequent investment.

With well founded intention, Frank Hunter has sought to enlighten readers and Seaburn residents of issues and to what appears to be a form of contradiction following representation by two Fulwell councillors, namely Margaret Beck and Bob Francis.

In her response, councillor Beck states that she and Bob Francis could only vote on the facts,(not wishes) before committing themselves in favour of outline planning permission.

Clearly, the nature and extent of the proposals (which are facts) were well known before the councillors voted, so in like mind, I fail to understand how they, with this certain knowledge, agreed to support the outline, and now being free of planning restrictions, declare opposition to the proposals.

The conclusion being that this form of action/conduct is unhelpful.

There remains uncertainty for the future as it appears nothing has been cast in stone.

However, the process has been kick-started and the application for full planning permission will eventually follow.

It is then that the councillors will need to get their act together.

Hopefully, reasoned argument will prevail to create a better structured balance in the proposal for development.

Arthur Pattison