Object
Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries
Representation ID: 63554
Received: 20/01/2014
Respondent: Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL
Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership
We would strongly recommend allocation of part of our client's land as a housing site in the current Local Plan. The site proposed as a housing allocation in this submission is the field parcel fronting Station Lane extending east to approximately the line of the current Settlement Boundary to the south of the site. The site area would include Discounted Option 9 together with land to the east up to the existing field boundary, a defensible physical boundary, boundary shown in Appendix A, figure 1 of the 'Landscape and Visual Assessment' which forms part of this submission. The site is in an extremely sustainable location being approximately 2 minutes walk to Lapworth railway station and bus stops, 6 minutes walk to the local primary school, less than 10 minutes walk to the shops in Lapworth and just over ten minutes walk to Lapworth surgery.
Our Client contends that the assessment of their site was distorted by the Council's decision, in the evidence, to ignore the existing access opposite number 145, Station Lane and assume that access would be provided towards the northern end of the road boundary, opposite 155 Station Lane. In order to secure visibility sight lines, this would necessitate the removal of exiting Tree Preservation Order (TPO) oak trees and an extensive length of road frontage hedging, one of the primary reasons for discounting the site. Our Clients also contend that the Council failed to assess in detail the landscape impact if development were confined to the field fronting Station Lane and appropriate mitigation measures taken. Instead their assessments are primarily concerned with the potential adverse impact residential development might have on the landscape if all, or a much larger section of the site promoted in the SHLAA were to be developed. For these reasons we contend that the evidence base is unsound and does not satisfy the requirements of the Framework.
see attached