BASE HEADER

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 69658

Derbyniwyd: 21/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Mr. Quentin Solt

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

SA
For a detailed analysis and re-classification proposal, see the full text attached.
Objective 1: Site doesn't propose employment therefore people will travel and should be assessed neutral
Objective 2: Insufficient information regarding relocation of bus stop. New access hasn't been assessed. unlikely to deliver sustainable transport mode improvements, nearest station is Warwick Parkway, not Hatton. Development should be assessed as comprising more than 80 dwellings and therefore, major negative
Objective 3: H53 cannot by reasons of it being part of a service village, be assessed as major negative. The site has received the lowest ranking assessment.
Objective 4: Assessment should be at least minor negative given that more waste will be produced and could be major negative if taking substantial earth movements needed in site construction taken into account together with transport and ecological costs.
Objective 5: Assessment failed to take into account impacts of proposed development. Insufficient weight given to major negative assessment.
Objective 6: Assessment indicates low to medium landscape value with low to medium ecological value. Site is in medium to high landscape value. Assessment should be major negative.
Objective 7: Assessment should be at least minor negative taking into account loss of privacy in new homes and overlooking from village hall and sports amenity area and loss of appearance of being in the countryside from existing views.
Objective 8: The historic environment would be materially and irretrievably damaged but assessment only allows a poorer ranking if SM's, LB's and CA's affected.
Objective 9: Agree
Objective 10: No evidence that development will reduce greenhouse gases or increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable/low carbon sources
Objective 11: Site is assessed as having been identified with SW drainage issues and should therefore be minor negative.
Objective 12: Density not in accordance with topography of site which inhibits development and access route reduces developable area. Retention of wildlife corridor reduces area. Ability to develop 55 dwellings whilst ensuring decent affordable housing for all and retaining hedgerow has not been established. No justification given for increase in labour for existing businesses and consumer spending so should be disregarded. Increased demand for services should be negative since they are at capacity. The assessment is the lowest available.
Objective 13: No additional services resulting from development so absurd to conclude that development has potential to support existing services when assessment is predicated on there being no existing services. Minor positive assessment is unjustified.
Sports facility would put new home owners and users of facility in conflict due to noise and disturbance.
Objective 14: Minor positive assessment given as site is within 300m of green space, but has opposite effect as H53 would cease to be within 300m.
Objective 15: Agreed
Objective 16: The effects on crime will be determined by detail of layout and design and therefore uncertain in assessment.
Planning considerations:
Access previously and correctly rejected due to topography and insufficient space without impacting on village hall.
Proposal ill-conceived -
it urbanises area around the village hall
results in children/young people negotiating parked/moving vehicles to access play areas, absorbs community orchard into built environment and could cause danger to cars/people from sports area where ball games occur.
Site not well thought through and is not necessary.
Site is not in compliance with NPPF including green belt policy and landscape value.