The Local Plan booklet dated November 2013 shows, north of the station, that the proposed green belt perimeter envelopes boundaries of all the existing properties. There is an exception though, where properties numbered 24, 26 and 28 have the green belt boundary drawn such that it splits their extended gardens in two, obviously these land owners are concerned that the boundaries of their properties have been divided and I understand have expressed their outrage to both parish and district councils.

Now, I understand that the Parish Council in their infinite wisdom and by using 'a sledge hammer to crack a nut' are going to suggest to the District council that the green belt should start north of the station which will include all the twelve houses on the one side of the road and Oakslade Studios + house and garden on the other. This suggestion will cause more problems and disputes than it will solve.

I now own the bungalow No.20 in Station Road (north of the station), I also own the land No.22 along side, which from the day they were initially purchased by my parents back in late 1940's have always been designated as building plots, on one plot my Father built his own bungalow for his family, the other used as a orchard, lawned garden and play area for his children. He was always confident that if at anytime that if the lack of finances dictated they would be able to benefit from the investment that was made when buying not just one but both building plots.

Both my parents have now passed away and since 2008 my partner and I have been the owners which is where we reside. It is my intention to apply for planning permission to erect a dwelling on the vacant plot, and currently I have an inquiry for such lodged with the planning department.

From a planning approval point of view I would hope the following would be looked on favourably
1. Since the 1940's it has always been a plot suitable to accommodate a dwelling and had been given a house number.
2. I understand there is already a water connection and sewer connection available.
3. The plot (17m x 63m) is adequate to accommodate a reasonably sized building with a good sized garden.
4. The access to the site would offer unobstructed views up and down the now 30 mph speed restricted road.
5. The new dwelling would be in unison with the existing front building line and also roof line of existing buildings.
6. This possible single/double dwelling could count towards the total new build requirement.
7. The build would not alienate any of the the five purposes the NPPF (3.3) has outlined for preservation of the Green Belt.
What would have a detrimental effect on possible planning permission being considered is if the building plot in question is encompassed within a green belt boundary as suggested by the parish council.

Therefore I consider the logical settlement boundary to adopt would need to be a modification to that currently shown north of the station. The only alteration would be for the line to follow down the complete length of the garden of No 24 and across the extreme boundaries of No.24, 26 & 28 by following the line of the canal. The field along side the garden of No.24 and behind Nos.12 to 22 to remain within the green belt boundary to discourage any back fill building aspirations and No.22 could house a new build, blending in with the existing.