Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 60732

Derbyniwyd: 12/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Sarah Jones

60 is too many.
They must find another access, even for fewer numbers as knocking a house down has already been refused and their suggestion that a shed sized replacement is in keeping with our conservation area is not true. Just because they can't get a road past the house without knocking it down doesnt mean that they should be allowed to do it anyway.
As this site was refused last year I dont understand why you are including it again here as it doesnt work.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 60789

Derbyniwyd: 13/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Jon Lewis

I am completely perplexed as to why a site that has just undergone a detailed examination by the planning authority via a planning application, and comprehensively refused due to a lack of suitable access, is now being put forward as a "preferred site" this is completely counter-intuitive given that these proposed sites purport to have been compiled following a recent detailed study - why is this site being given the exact opposite recommendation to that of the planning officer who refused this site?

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61091

Derbyniwyd: 19/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jacqueline Crampton

support this proposal

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61291

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Asiant : Barton Willmore

-The site provides an appropriate and sustainable location for growth.
-The location of the site within the existing built form/bypass means any development would have a minimal impact on the landscape setting of Barford.
-It would deliver benefits to the village creating housing opportunities for both new and existing residents.
-The mix of housing enable young people to stay in the area, give opportunities for people within Barford to downsize thus creating housing opportunities within the existing stock.
-A planning application has been submitted which seeks to respond to the concerns raised through the previous plans.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61363

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Steven Peters

-There are too many houses proposed for one site. The resulting suburban housing estate will blight Barford for ever and will fail to comply with the Village Design Statement or the emerging Neighbourhood Plan
- The proposed access is totally unsuitable. It has already been rejected by Warwick DC Planners as part of an outline application. A better access is through 2 Westham Lane.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61446

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Historic England

The evidence base, fails to establish how Site 2 at Barford contributes to the character, appearance and significance of the Conservation Area; and the effect of the proposed development on those attributes. It appears neither the Baginton Conservation Area Appraisal nor the industry standard guidance on assessing the impact of development on the setting of heritage assets have been applied. Consequently it is not clear whether the proposals are in accordance with the NPPF policies for the protection and enhancement of the historic environment and Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61531

Derbyniwyd: 10/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Robert Mulgrue

-If Barford has to take the proposed 70 - 90 homes, then the three preferred options are the least unacceptable.
-Of the two large sites available, Site 2 is the least disruptive of the village's surrounding landscape.
-The smaller sites would not be able to accommodate the level of additional homes required.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61831

Derbyniwyd: 15/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Roger Braithwaite

Support the housing options for Barford

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 61965

Derbyniwyd: 02/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Robert Mulgrue

-If Barford has to take the additional homes currently proposed by the District Council, the Neighbourhood Development Plan Group supports the three preferred sites named in the consultation documents provided that:

(i) The mix of types of housing meets the needs identified in the Housing Needs Survey
(ii) The building is phased over the Local Plan period.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 61968

Derbyniwyd: 15/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Gregory Weston

-Too many houses already.
-Roads are busy and parking is poor.
-People currently park cars on grass verges destroying grassed areas.
-Too many parked cars are causing safety issues in the current close.
-A good/nice standard of property would enhance the area and maintain current residential walks.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 62165

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr David Giles

-The site has no acceptable access and has drainage problems.
-It would create significant highway safety issues on Wellesbourne Road.
-How can a site which has been resolutely refused planning permission less than 12 months ago suddenly become a preferred option for development?

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 63153

Derbyniwyd: 20/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Robin Smith-Ryland

Asiant : Mrs Dianne McDougall

-Objects to development in Barford and request that there be provision for the replacement of the Sherbourne Village Hall.
-The present Village Hall is on Church Road. The lease on the Village Hall finishes in 2022 however, Mr Smith-Ryland is inclined not to renew the lease. Instead it is proposed that he will provide facility for a new Village Hall as part of a small housing development.
-The project would assist young people looking for housing outside the village due to the high price of housing in the village and would also provide a fit for purpose Community building.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 63211

Derbyniwyd: 17/01/2014

Ymatebydd: Sharba Homes

Asiant : PJPlanning

-Despite planning application W/12/1083 (submitted by Taylor Wimpey) being refused in part due to the impact development would have on the conservation area, it is listed as preferred option site BAR.2 within the report. As the impact on the conservation area would be a critical part of assessing the overall acceptability of the principle of development, it is confusing to understand how this has been included and had a uniformed approach been taken through sites within Barford, this would not be the case.