Issues and Options Document
Search representations
Results for Save Greensward Greenbelt search
New searchObject
Issues and Options Document
Delivering our Need for Homes
Representation ID: 35776
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: Save Greensward Greenbelt
I offer the following objections regarding the draft Local Plan proposals published by Rochford District Council in particular to the site COL38.
Objection 1 - Public Inquiry support for the Open Play Space.
I live adjacent to the open play space (site COL38) which has pedestrian access between my property No 43 Malvern Road and my neighbour Mr Dell at No 45. In 2013 I was contacted by Essex County Council and subsequently by Rochford District Council to support their objection to a proposed bridleway - Definitive Map Modification No.553 (Bridleway 44 Ashingdon, Rochford) Order 2013 ref: FPS/Z1585/7/77. In 2014, I met with RDC`s legal team and appointed barrister on several occasions prior to the Public Inquiry which commenced in May 2014. I was called as a witness on behalf of RDC at the Inquiry. Having spent so much energy, time and money defending it as an open space It is with some surprise to learn that RDC now wish to develop this land. When concluding his report in December 2014, Inspector Martin Elliott made specific reference (para 38 & 39) to the level of concern expressed by all objectors including RDC that the play space should not be developed.
Objection 2 - Wider community Impact.
Although not the remit of the Inquiry, the level of use by pedestrians and cyclists across the open space was recorded in the final report. This route enables a number of local residents to access Beckney Woods and beyond and is a facility enjoyed by many. If development was permitted it would have a wider detrimental impact upon the local community who currently enjoy its use.
Objection 3 - Subsidence to existing property.
I moved to Malvern Road in 1994. As part of a grounds maintenance programme during a period between 2008-10, RDC planted a number of trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the open space. The result of this work can clearly be seen using google maps/photographs. In 2010 a large crack developed across my garage floor together with increasing incidents of water ingress due to the structural failure of my garage. I contacted RDC who redirected me to Zurich Insurance. Ultimately, I contacted my own insurance company who established from bore holes and monitoring that the subsidence was caused by the vegetation planted by RDC. In 2014 a new garage was built. I informed my insurance company of my communications with RDC but unaware if they had tried to reclaim their losses. I was required to pay an excess of £1,000 and have been unable to date to recoup my losses. Given my experience, I fear that any development on the open space would have a negative impact upon my property.
Objection 4 - Poor Site conditions and increasing potential flooding risk.
COL 38 is a steeply sloping site which is a quagmire during wet winters and baked hard with large open cracks in summer. The development of up to four properties would cover the area with impermeable surfaces increasing run surface runoff and creating a potential flood risk to properties such as mine which sit below. Even now, during periods of heavy rain, water runs as a stream from the open space across the road. Creating a greater impermeable surface area with little natural infiltration would put even more pressure on our surface water drainage increasing the risk of flooding.
Objection 5 - Privacy.
My fifth objection is regarding the potential reduction of any privacy currently enjoyed. Due to the elevation of the site, even a single storey building would allow its occupants to have an unrestricted view of my entire garden preventing me to have any privacy currently enjoyed. This would have a negative impact upon the value of my property and I fear it would become very difficult to sell. I would not be able to follow the usual practice of putting up a higher fence (its already six foot) or plant a conifer screen for fear of increasing the risk of subsidence.
In conclusion, COL38 is a site which has restricted access, is steeply sloping, poorly drained and used by many locals to access footpaths and woodland areas. Any development would not only have a negative impact upon the value of the surrounding properties but also on the wider local community.
I trust you will take into consideration my objections to the development of COL 38 when formulating your final plan.
I offer the following objections regarding the draft Local Plan proposals published by Rochford District Council in particular to the site COL38.
Objection 1 - Public Inquiry support for the Open Play Space.
I live adjacent to the open play space (site COL38) which has pedestrian access between my property No 43 Malvern Road and my neighbour Mr Dell at No 45. In 2013 I was contacted by Essex County Council and subsequently by Rochford District Council to support their objection to a proposed bridleway - Definitive Map Modification No.553 (Bridleway 44 Ashingdon, Rochford) Order 2013 ref: FPS/Z1585/7/77. In 2014, I met with RDC`s legal team and appointed barrister on several occasions prior to the Public Inquiry which commenced in May 2014. I was called as a witness on behalf of RDC at the Inquiry. Having spent so much energy, time and money defending it as an open space It is with some surprise to learn that RDC now wish to develop this land. When concluding his report in December 2014, Inspector Martin Elliott made specific reference (para 38 & 39) to the level of concern expressed by all objectors including RDC that the play space should not be developed.
Objection 2 - Wider community Impact.
Although not the remit of the Inquiry, the level of use by pedestrians and cyclists across the open space was recorded in the final report. This route enables a number of local residents to access Beckney Woods and beyond and is a facility enjoyed by many. If development was permitted it would have a wider detrimental impact upon the local community who currently enjoy its use.
Objection 3 - Subsidence to existing property.
I moved to Malvern Road in 1994. As part of a grounds maintenance programme during a period between 2008-10, RDC planted a number of trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the open space. The result of this work can clearly be seen using google maps/photographs. In 2010 a large crack developed across my garage floor together with increasing incidents of water ingress due to the structural failure of my garage. I contacted RDC who redirected me to Zurich Insurance. Ultimately, I contacted my own insurance company who established from bore holes and monitoring that the subsidence was caused by the vegetation planted by RDC. In 2014 a new garage was built. I informed my insurance company of my communications with RDC but unaware if they had tried to reclaim their losses. I was required to pay an excess of £1,000 and have been unable to date to recoup my losses. Given my experience, I fear that any development on the open space would have a negative impact upon my property.
Objection 4 - Poor Site conditions and increasing potential flooding risk.
COL 38 is a steeply sloping site which is a quagmire during wet winters and baked hard with large open cracks in summer. The development of up to four properties would cover the area with impermeable surfaces increasing run surface runoff and creating a potential flood risk to properties such as mine which sit below. Even now, during periods of heavy rain, water runs as a stream from the open space across the road. Creating a greater impermeable surface area with little natural infiltration would put even more pressure on our surface water drainage increasing the risk of flooding.
Objection 5 - Privacy.
My fifth objection is regarding the potential reduction of any privacy currently enjoyed. Due to the elevation of the site, even a single storey building would allow its occupants to have an unrestricted view of my entire garden preventing me to have any privacy currently enjoyed. This would have a negative impact upon the value of my property and I fear it would become very difficult to sell. I would not be able to follow the usual practice of putting up a higher fence (its already six foot) or plant a conifer screen for fear of increasing the risk of subsidence.
In conclusion, COL38 is a site which has restricted access, is steeply sloping, poorly drained and used by many locals to access footpaths and woodland areas. Any development would not only have a negative impact upon the value of the surrounding properties but also on the wider local community.
I trust you will take into consideration my objections to the development of COL 38 when formulating your final plan.
