Increasing the level of participation among local people and communities is a major part of the government’s programme, allowing people to influence decisions and plans that directly affect them and their neighbourhoods. Over the last few months the Town Council has embarked on a series of consultations with the people of Daventry on various proposals being put forward for their town.

In this process the Town Council has been guided by the new Government White Paper “Communities in Control” real people real power”- the “Local Government and Public Health Act” and elements within the “Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill”.

The aims and statutory requirements placed on local authorities and other organisations by Central Government have clearly been set:- in future, for proposals and decisions that potentially and directly affect communities and neighbourhoods in Daventry, the new statutory “Duty to Involve” together with new local expectations, will require a new approach in providing meaningful local consultations - and not just surveys of opinion drawn from the wider administrative area, which are often distorted and misrepresentative.

The loss to the community of leisure facilities and green spaces

Over the last few years we have witnessed the removal of two main outdoor leisure facilities from this town centre location- the outdoor swimming pool and the Pitch and Putt Park. The loss to the community on the pool site was not confined to the swimming facility but to a large degree the loss of a much-used safe green open space, frequented in the summer by many local families with young children making full use of this safe enclosed public area, including the kiddies’ paddling pool.

Under the plans proposed for site 3 the loss to the community continues with all the remaining public green spaces being removed, including the mature greenery within the underpass, the Eastern Way playing field and all the green verges along this route.

In exchange for the loss of these public open green spaces the community is being asked to accept that the proposed new developments will “deliver a major piece of green infrastructure to support the sustainable development of Daventry.”

Waterspace / marina and canal arm proposals

The result of Daventry Town Council’s recent household questionnaire has highlighted significant local concerns for certain elements of the Waterspace/Marina and canal proposals for site 3 of the District Council’s Masterplan.

The Council asked both quantitative and qualitative questions. An open question was asked to elicit peoples’ views on the Waterspace and from the responses received from residents the indication was that 70% were against, 20% for, and 10% don’t knows - “A full data analysis of the replies is available from Daventry Town Council upon request”.

The questionnaire in the March edition of the Town Council’s newsletter (“The Town Crier”) was accompanied by an indicative design of how the canal and marina basin might look; this, together with textual information and promotional material, was supplied by Daventry District Council.

In formulating this report we have considered Site 3 as three distinct areas, separated by Northern Way –

1. Waterspace/permanent boat moorings
2. Residential/commercial areas
3. Visitors’ marina/canal arm

1. Waterspace/permanent boat moorings

The waterspace/permanent boat moorings serve no purpose as a leisure facility for the local community; it is clearly aimed at adding commercial and visual value to the encircling developments.

Public safety

Public safety issues seem not to have been considered in the design, location or use of this water feature, nor has the promoter engaged or consulted with the local community on the important issue of safety. Several respondents to the questionnaire expressed particular concern for the dangers associated with placing high-density housing so close to unsupervised water, and the Town Council would urge planners and promoters of this scheme to consider very carefully the potential for tragedy of placing family accommodation and day/night time leisure facilities so close to a significant and recognised public safety risk.

The Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson states in his annual report “On the State of Public Health 2003” Spotlighting local health problems and trends:

“As a consequence of extensive regeneration of urban communities, canal sides are becoming increasingly fashionable for residential development, while canal towpaths are being promoted as a recreational resource . In the past canals (and especially canal locks) were well recognised within communities as presenting a drowning hazard – especially for children. It may be now that a wider appreciation of drowning risks is necessary in regeneration programmes and in schemes to promote recreation and healthy physical activity in canal side areas”.

Professor John Ashton, Regional Director of Public Health (North West):

“When the place of residence of persons drowning are plotted on a map of the region, together with the locations of coastlines and waterways, a strong pattern has emerged where those who live close to canals are at particular risk of accidental and self-harm drowning. This is especially high during summer and Christmas periods due to association with alcohol consumption”.

The Town Council strongly urges all stakeholders in this scheme to consider very carefully all available evidence for drowning risks associated with this type of canal side development in a high density urban area, and for there to be proper local consultation and public debate on this important issue.

2. Residential/commercial areas

Building heights

Around the plaza there appears to be 4 storey buildings on top of undercroft car parking which would make the blocks 5 storeys at least. There is also an hotel which is over the height limit.

This height is in contravention of the Town Design Statement, adopted by the District Council, in which it states that no buildings should be more than 3.5 storeys unless it is an iconic building. Blocks of housing do not constitute iconic status.

The Council is also concerned at the high density of dwellings in this area. No mention appears to have been made with regard to the provision of social housing in this area.

3. Visitors’ marina and canal arm

A significant proportion of the respondents rejected the canal arm and marina proposals. Comments were varied but most were simply dismissive, a common thread was questioning who would use it and on a cost/gain analysis what value it would bring to the town or local community.

The Council also questions the viability of a boat lift/Falkirk Wheel, as research shows that this will not be self-financing and it is worth noting the Falkirk Wheel operates at a loss.

The Consultation does not indicate how much work has been done so far on technical studies. The availability of water resources will be an important matter to investigate as the flow into Daventry Reservoir is unlikely to be sufficient to provide enough water to supply the canal and to support the use of locks in summer months.

A further point to note is that there is no indication of cost of to maintain both the canal arm and the locks/lift, in fact the council would question whether British Waterways will adopt this canal arm due to the recent reduction in their budget.

Vandalism and canal towpath dangers were often cited but overwhelmingly people could not understand why so much public resource was being earmarked for this project.

IN SUMMARY

• Council condemns the loss of public open green space to date and the further losses proposed for this town centre site

• Council rejects the waterspace as proposed on the grounds of public safety and its usefulness for the local community.

• Council supports the retention of significant public open green space on site 3 and would welcome a review of alternative options for a waterspace to ensure it is a safe and inclusive feature benefiting the town and its residents.

• Council does not agree with the massive public investment required to construct a canal arm to link the Grand Union Canal with the proposed waterspace.

• Council rejects buildings that are over 3 storeys in height with the exception of iconic buildings.

• Council believes that S106 monies should be used to benefit the people of Daventry (including improvement to the infrastructure). Therefore the council would reject use of these funds for such projects.

• The Town Council sees nothing in these plans for site 3 that could be considered “a major piece of green infrastructure” or compensates the community for the loss of leisure facilities and green spaces in this location, already imposed and planned