BASE HEADER

Other

ID sylw: 106117

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: David Blackwell

Site 67 – End of Village Street (Village Farm Garden)
The big garden at Village Farm might handle one house if it’s done right, but anything more would wreck the edge of the village. It’s quiet and rural here, and too many houses would ruin that. Plus, access has to be off Village Street—trying to use Long Itchington Road would make traffic a nightmare and isn’t safe. I read in your planning rules (NPPF Paragraph 115, I think) that developments shouldn’t mess up road safety, and that fits here. One decent house, maybe, but that’s it—keep it small to protect how things are.

Site 221 – East of School Hill
I’m totally against building on this field. They tried about four years back and got told no—nothing’s changed since. From my place at 22 Village Street, it’d block the views north from our bedrooms and garden, right down to the Stags Head Inn. It’d be an eyesore, plain and simple. Your rules (NPPF Paragraph 130) say new builds should make things better, not worse for people already here, and this fails that test. Punch Taverns owned it before the 2011 auction and got refused too—same problems still apply. No reason to say yes now when it’s been no before.

Site 66 – Sydens Place
Building near the River Leam at Sydens Place just doesn’t work. I’ve seen that area flood over the years—it’s a risk that’s only getting worse with the weather these days. Your policies (NPPF Paragraphs 159–169) say don’t build where it floods unless there’s no choice, and there’s no good reason for it here. Raising the land might stop houses flooding, but it’d push water somewhere else, which isn’t fair—your Flood and Water Management Act says you’ve got to watch that. It’s a bad spot for homes, end of story.

Broader Concerns
On top of all this, putting houses on all three sites would change Offchurch for good—and not in a good way. It’s a small, rural place, and modern estates would kill that. Your rules (NPPF Paragraph 174) talk about keeping the countryside’s character, and that’s what I’m asking for. Another big thing: all these proposed sites—67, 221, and 66—are in the green belt and a conservation area. From what I understand, that means building here is supposed to be really limited, to keep the countryside open and protect the village’s history. Your rules (like NPPF Paragraph 147 for green belt and Paragraph 200 for conservation areas) say development should only happen if there’s a damn good reason, and I don’t see one here.

These sites aren’t just any old fields—they’re part of what makes Offchurch special, and they need to stay that way.
After nearly 60 years here, I want the village to stay how it is for the next lot who come along. Please say no to these plans.