Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 41998
Received: 01/09/2021
Respondent: Mr Terence Sheern
I would like to add to my previous objections and comments submitted on the Spatial Options consultation.
1. Old Mummeries Nursery in barrow hall Road - When the old nursery finished trading the owners asked for permission to build three bungalows which was refused by the council as it was green belt. The land was then sold to Dedman Gray and they sort permission for 24 houses which thankfully was once again refused being green belt. We now find in this consultation document that the council have suggested this plot could in fact hold 95 dwellings. So the council have now told the owners they would consider such a build with no consideration for the local residents and the effect this would have. If there were 95 dwellings that would mean for example probably around 150 cars, where would they all park? there would not be enough room on the site so the only open would be on the pavement in barling road behind the plot as Barrow Hall is too narrow, So this presumably means the council would be condoning illegal parking, or has this not been considered?
A sensible application for 5/6 houses would not be objected to in my view
2. The consultation document makes three statements of importance A) It would be evidence based, B) villages/hamlet retaining their character C) Local communities want more infrastructure, more road links more industry more shops etc. So my comments on these statements are How can a local village/hamlet retain its character if C were true and where is the evidence such requirements are sort by residents. I know of not one resident who want sany of these things so why is the council suggesting they do. People move to these areas for the complete opposite in my view, which is not represented in the document anywhere, why not, if the document were evidence based then the views of the existing residents would be reflected rather than statements made by staff members. Any development in this area on the scale suggested would ruin the local community and its character.
3. What is the actual demand for more housing in this area, just because a farmer can see an opportunity to make money surely doesn't mean the Council needs to accept. Housing numbers in the district have rocketed over recent years and all quotas have been met as I understand it so why doesn't the document reflect that and suggest a period little development for the next 10 years for example.
4. I note with interest that the areas where members of the planning committee live are those areas least affected.
I would like to add to my previous objections and comments submitted on the Spatial Options consultation.
1. Old Mummeries Nursery in barrow hall Road - When the old nursery finished trading the owners asked for permission to build three bungalows which was refused by the council as it was green belt. The land was then sold to Dedman Gray and they sort permission for 24 houses which thankfully was once again refused being green belt. We now find in this consultation document that the council have suggested this plot could in fact hold 95 dwellings. So the council have now told the owners they would consider such a build with no consideration for the local residents and the effect this would have. If there were 95 dwellings that would mean for example probably around 150 cars, where would they all park? there would not be enough room on the site so the only open would be on the pavement in barling road behind the plot as Barrow Hall is too narrow, So this presumably means the council would be condoning illegal parking, or has this not been considered?
A sensible application for 5/6 houses would not be objected to in my view
2. The consultation document makes three statements of importance A) It would be evidence based, B) villages/hamlet retaining their character C) Local communities want more infrastructure, more road links more industry more shops etc. So my comments on these statements are How can a local village/hamlet retain its character if C were true and where is the evidence such requirements are sort by residents. I know of not one resident who want sany of these things so why is the council suggesting they do. People move to these areas for the complete opposite in my view, which is not represented in the document anywhere, why not, if the document were evidence based then the views of the existing residents would be reflected rather than statements made by staff members. Any development in this area on the scale suggested would ruin the local community and its character.
3. What is the actual demand for more housing in this area, just because a farmer can see an opportunity to make money surely doesn't mean the Council needs to accept. Housing numbers in the district have rocketed over recent years and all quotas have been met as I understand it so why doesn't the document reflect that and suggest a period little development for the next 10 years for example.
4. I note with interest that the areas where members of the planning committee live are those areas least affected.