Object

Representation ID: 66625

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Dr Diana Taulbut

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Red House Farm allocation should be revisited as it is unsound . The following matters are all causes of concern relating to its current inclusion in the Plan.
- Policy DS11 (H04) fails to mention that Red House Farm is actually greenbelt and calls it "green-field". This is highly misleading and would have misled anyone considering this policy in isolation.
- H04 is contrary to NPPF para's 73 and 74 as H04 contains the riding schools grazing fields. The riding school is a valuable recreational asset that also provides employment opportunities. The plan makes no provisions for the replacement of this facility.
- H04 is contrary to the purposes of including land in the green belt as it will not "safeguard the countryside from encroachment". This land is also of valuable agricultural quality and should be preserved for food security reasons.
- H04 is contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 80) as no specific consideration has been given to the use of brownfield sites elsewhere. Sites in Lillington that should be considered include the Old Round Oak school and the URC on the Cubbington Road (both of which are closer to the shops etc. than Red House Farm).
- The Council has not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" and does not make a coherent or sound argument for the removal of this land from the green belt. The owners willingness to release the land is not "exceptional".
- The intended re-location of the green belt boundary is flawed as it has no physical features to reinforce this line. Therefore it could not be considered a permanent boundary. There is no indication that if this new boundary were put in place that it would not be subject to change at the end of the next plan period.
- The District Council has not given any consideration or weight to the fact that this proposal will damage the remaining green belt(its openness and permanence would be compromised).
- A portion of the area include in allocation H04 was not included in the green belt study.
-The area at Red House Farm is in an area of tranquillity and should be defended as such . The Local Plan fails in its obligation to identify and defend such areas.
- The consultation on the allocation/ plan has been inadequate, the terminology for the allocation is also mis-leading , it should have been called Campion Hills for local people to recognise it properly.
- The allocation is founded on incomplete studies. Full wildlife assessments have not been conducted . Some 'red-list' species are present and have legal protection.
- It is stated that this allocation will support the regeneration of Lillington. It is suggested that Lillington is not as badly deprived as argued and that to use this as a justification for the allocation of so many houses is wrong/ unsound. Much of Lillington does not require 'regeneration' as it is perfectly acceptable as it already is.