Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Search representations
Results for Kingswood Homes search
New searchObject
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Sites Review
Representation ID: 60627
Received: 15/12/2013
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
Objecting to the exclusion of site 13 (Land of Brome Hall Lane) as a preferred option site.
- believes the reasons for exclusion are not justified as is as close to the settlement as other preferred options, has no higher landscape value than other sites, and will have no greater impact on wildlife.
I am objecting to land on Brome Hall Lane not being a prefered option site.
I have outlined below why this site should be promoted to a prefered option site.
Unfortunately, this site has not been promoted by the landowners until this stage. As one of the owners, I very much hope that the fact that this iste has not been represented until this stage does not effect the outcome of this process.
The current reasons for this not being considered are 'distance from settlement', 'high landscapre value', 'commections to potential local wildlife site'.
Distance from settlement: Subject to the above revised village boundary (to include Foremans Cottage as outlined below) this site would be immediately adjacent to the village boundary. This site is adjacent to preferred option site number 4 and no further from the village centre than this site would be.
High landscape value: While this site is adjacent to the canal network (as with three of the preferred option sites 1, 2 & 6) it offers no additional landscape value over and above many of the other preferred option sites.
Connections to potential wildlife site: Again, I would strongly suggest that this site has no additional impact on wildlife than any of the other preferred optioon sites. I would be happy for a habitat survey to be undertaken to demonstrate this as part of the planning process.
The preferred options sites are lower impact: Development on Brome hall Lane would be a lower impact than several of the current draft preferred option sites which have no road and services network to support tham.
We would be happy to see Brome hall Lane 9option 13) developed to a very high quality low density development to respect the adjacent listed building (as proposed with preferred option site 2).
There is already residential development on either side of the field, which makes it a natural position for development.
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Sites Review
Representation ID: 60772
Received: 15/12/2013
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
Site 13 and Foremans Cottage should be developed because:
Site 13:
-It is located no further from the village than preferred option Site 4.
-It has no additional landscape or ecological value above the other preferred options. The site has a road and service networks to support development.
-Adjacent residential development makes it a natural position for development.
Foremans Cottage:
-Offers a natural expansion with the provision of a historic tree line as a natural boundary.
-Foremans Cottage has been extended increasing the building density.
-A natural break between Foremans Cottage and the properties further down Brome Hall Lane exists.
See attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Kingswood
Representation ID: 61380
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
-The housing numbers allocated to Lapworth have been underestimated as it offers a more sustainable location then other villages.
Following our last discussions and my response form, I have been in discussions with Tyler Parkes Planning consultants. I have instructed them to deal with the proposal to relocate the draft proposed village boundary to include my property, which should be received today before the deadline.
I also held discussions with Tyler Parkes about them producing information to support my proposals to include my field (Option 13) as a preferred option housing site, however unfortunately due to time and financial constraints this has not been possible. However they did state that due to the research they have already undertaken for another landowner (with regard to housing numbers) and after viewing and researching my field, that an excellent case could be produced to promote this option. Therefore I have below outlined some additional information that was not covered in my last submission. Hopefully the fact that I have not instructed a planning consultant to deal with this matter does not impact our chances of success.
Housing Numbers
Although I have been unable to undertake my own research on this matter, it is my understanding (from discussions with Tyler Parkes Planning Consultants) that the housing numbers allocated to Lapworth have been underestimated as it offers a more sustainable location then other villages therefore more houses should be allocated.
Landscape Value
It is our view that too much emphasis may have been place on the landscape value of the land, we appreciate that it is adjacent to the Canal, however as previously mentioned this is the same as several of the other preferred option sites. The land is very well screen on all sides with mature trees and high hedges meaning that development of the land will not impact on the surrounding landscape. In addition to this it is our intention to seek for development a low density very high quality housing scheme, which would have a very limited impact on the surrounding landscape. It is worth noting again that their is already housing either side of the field (unlike some of the other preferred option sites) which lends to a natural extension to the village.
Connections to local wildlife sites
As I live in foreman's Cottage adjacent to the field I believe that there is no wildlife present over and above that expected on any of the preferred option sites. I understand that a full habitat survey has not been carried out and I would be happy to undertake these works as part of the planning process.
I trust that this email and my previous response form may help you to reconsider my field as a preferred option housing site, should you require any further information I would be happy to provide this.
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Indicative Settlement Boundary
Representation ID: 61381
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership
-The approach taken to the realignment of the Settlement Boundary is not wholly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework).
-Paragraph 85 of the Framework requires local planning authorities when defining Green Belt boundaries to, amongst other considerations, '...not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open' and '...define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
-Suggestions are made for the inclusion of Foreman's Cottage and the Canal Office and Engineering Works in the Settlement Boundary. A map has been provided indicating the suggested boundary changes.
Please find attached a letter of formal representation in response to the consultation on the Village Housing options and Settlement Boundaries consultation, submitted on behalf of our client Mr Shaun Hussey. Also attached and forming part of the submission are a plan and aerial photograph showing the proposed re-alignment to the indicative Kingswood (Lapworth) Village boundary.
For your ease of reference, a copy of the representation form submitted previously by our client in response to this consultation is attached.
see attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Indicative Settlement Boundary
Representation ID: 61765
Received: 15/12/2013
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
See attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Sites Review
Representation ID: 61766
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership
The landowner of Foreman's Cottage suggests that it should be a preferred option for development because:
-The land is already developed andoccupied by a detached residential property and associated buildings.
-It is screened by mature trees and hedging. The property has very much been part of the village life and the character of the site is enclosed rather than open thus it would be inappropriate to retain within the Green Belt.
-Foreman's Cottage is part of a cluster of buildings. The buildings and their grounds are readily recognisable which were associated with the operation of the canal.
Please find attached a letter of formal representation in response to the consultation on the Village Housing options and Settlement Boundaries consultation, submitted on behalf of our client Mr Shaun Hussey. Also attached and forming part of the submission are a plan and aerial photograph showing the proposed re-alignment to the indicative Kingswood (Lapworth) Village boundary.
For your ease of reference, a copy of the representation form submitted previously by our client in response to this consultation is attached.
see attached
Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Sites Review
Representation ID: 61767
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Kingswood Homes
In ownership of discounted option (Site 13), which they wish to promote for development as:
-The landscape value is the same as the other preferred options.
-The land is well screened on all sides with mature trees and high hedges. Therefore it would not impact on the surrounding landscape.
-Seek to provide a low density, very high quality housing scheme which would have limited impact on the surrounding landscape.
-There is already housing either side of the field lending to a natural extension to the village.
-There is no wildlife present over and above that expected on the preferred options.
Following our last discussions and my response form, I have been in discussions with Tyler Parkes Planning consultants. I have instructed them to deal with the proposal to relocate the draft proposed village boundary to include my property, which should be received today before the deadline.
I also held discussions with Tyler Parkes about them producing information to support my proposals to include my field (Option 13) as a preferred option housing site, however unfortunately due to time and financial constraints this has not been possible. However they did state that due to the research they have already undertaken for another landowner (with regard to housing numbers) and after viewing and researching my field, that an excellent case could be produced to promote this option. Therefore I have below outlined some additional information that was not covered in my last submission. Hopefully the fact that I have not instructed a planning consultant to deal with this matter does not impact our chances of success.
Housing Numbers
Although I have been unable to undertake my own research on this matter, it is my understanding (from discussions with Tyler Parkes Planning Consultants) that the housing numbers allocated to Lapworth have been underestimated as it offers a more sustainable location then other villages therefore more houses should be allocated.
Landscape Value
It is our view that too much emphasis may have been place on the landscape value of the land, we appreciate that it is adjacent to the Canal, however as previously mentioned this is the same as several of the other preferred option sites. The land is very well screen on all sides with mature trees and high hedges meaning that development of the land will not impact on the surrounding landscape. In addition to this it is our intention to seek for development a low density very high quality housing scheme, which would have a very limited impact on the surrounding landscape. It is worth noting again that their is already housing either side of the field (unlike some of the other preferred option sites) which lends to a natural extension to the village.
Connections to local wildlife sites
As I live in foreman's Cottage adjacent to the field I believe that there is no wildlife present over and above that expected on any of the preferred option sites. I understand that a full habitat survey has not been carried out and I would be happy to undertake these works as part of the planning process.
I trust that this email and my previous response form may help you to reconsider my field as a preferred option housing site, should you require any further information I would be happy to provide this.