H20 Barford - Land south of Barford House
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65423
Received: 24/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The purpose of the objection is to protect the historic open landscape of this area of Barford Village.
This is comes in two parts,
1, The historic parkland of Barford House and its setting.
2, The openness of the area link with the historic character of the built village and the open countryside beyond.
The landscape appraisals combined with the conservation policy for the village formed in 1996 and reviewed in 2002 and the Council own refusals to build on the parkland since 1973 including appeal inspector decisions, shows that this is a very important and sensitivity area.
In the first consultation of the Local Plan consultation the land was excluded as unsuitable due to conservation reasons now in the second consultation it is deemed acceptable. Nothing has changed to the area since the consultations.
The second consultation says " a small enclosed site with some limited potential for a sensitively designed development." This is miss leading as the land form parts of the larger Parkland area south of Barford House and there is no physical separation.
Regardless of the number built it will be an isolated development projecting into the open area within the heart of the village.
It will not relate to the built form of the village.
It will block the views across the area and to and form Barford House. It will lead to pressure to build similarly on the adjoining allotments.
It will lead to the tranquillity of the area being spoilt and the quite enjoyment of the occupants in the retirement flats and Barford House.
Until the present owner purchase the land in the 70`s it was used for sheep grazing forming a very rural setting to the house since then it has been left unattended and now forms a wildlife sanctuary due to the enclosed boundaries.
Historic Concerns:
The actual area of land proposed was the kitchen gardens for Barford House this is clearly shown on plans and aerial photos, also the laundry building for the house were situated along side the boundary wall in this area.
The land has always been recognized as part of Barford House estate and its boundary being formally designated by the Council this year.
The brick boundary wall and brick gated pier service entrance will be lost and/or their signification lost to the house due to any development.
The views from Barford House south across the land part of which formed
the original pleasure grounds will be blocked and spoilt with the encroachment of the development. And the tranquillity of the area especially at night will be lost.
This " triangular" area of the village bounded by the Wellesbourne Road, Church Street and the allotment public footpath east consist to the greater part of eighteen century buildings the inclusion of modern buildings within this and which will have to be built to current building specifications will harm and devalue the historic uniqueness.
Planning History of the Land south of Barford House:
In 1975 11 dwellings were refused and upheld on appeal due to lost of open space being an important factor. (T/APP/2462/A/74.3103/09).
In 1981 24 dwellings were refused and upheld on appeal "unacceptable effect on the form and character of the village and open setting of Barford House" the inspector also said that the council would find it difficult to resist similar proposals on the other parts of the open area ie the allotments.
(T/APP/5399/A/81/11641/G9).
In 1986 24 dwellings were refused on lost of visual character and open space.-Within the proposed land area.
In 1987 12 dwellings redrawn due new village boundary being adopted. -Within the proposed land area.
In 2011 application to build 58 dwellings on the whole parkland refused on conservation issues and upheld at appeal.
In 2013 application to build 50 dwellings on the whole parkland refused on conservation issues appeal pending.
Issues with controlling building on the land if the land is approved for development:
The SA report required a "limited sensitively designed development" in reality how achievable will this be when commercial developers principle interest is to gain the highest financial returns from the land. The SA requires the application for the Nursery site in Barford to have protected landscape boundaries between the existing houses the developers are already ignoring this requirement and are only showing one area of landscape, The developers Sharba Homes have already shown how little regards to the conservation issues in their recent planning applications on the Parkland if designated for development now this will not improve.
In the first consultation the land the land was classied for five dwellings now it has been increased to eight but these are not binding figures so developers will aim for the highest number as been seen over the years through the many planning applications to build on this area of land with up a possible twenty dwellings in the last application on the same area of land, it is difficult to see how the numbers could be controlled to achieve a sensitive limited development.
The proposed boundary line (north) needs to be redrawn to be at least in line with the built form of the retirement home and parallel to the road (see diagram) as oppose to going further into the land with the boundary drawn along the retirement home. Ideally the boundary should be drawn closer to the road with the historic assets ie the wall being outside this would allow for more open views as oppose to a compact development and to preserve the historic features by creating a road side development.
The parameters of what will be acceptable should form an part of the conditions for the land to be included within the Local Plan and not left until a planning application stage. This should include dwelling numbers, roof heights, landscaping areas, style and use.
As the land is within the same ownership of the rest of the parkland part of the planning condition should be to repair and upkeep of the whole of the estate, such as the boundary walls, the trees etc.
Alternatives to using this land for building:
This is the only isolated site put forward in the option consultation for the village and only one that has historic and landscape that will be harmed through being developed all the rest are adjacent to the built form of the village and so should be reviewed on this bases when evaluating the other especially if development is based on small scale developments.
The car sales option should be retained as it is most suitable, and the recent application for six dwellings on Westham lane next to the granted six and the pending sixty houses on the other side of the lane could be exchanged for this site now that this area of the village landscape has been changed in landscape character.
Also the recent announcement of land for 5,000 homes near Coventry should be used instead of using the villages as development zones.
New Local Plan sections Village Site Appraisal Matrix April 2014 and Landscape Assessment Update April 2014 have in correct and misleading statements:
It states that the land is adjacent to a listed park and garden it has always been part of Barford House parkland and the boundary was formally approved by the District this year.
It is stated that it the land is sandwiched between two flats and the allotments the flats are a single combined block of retirement flats with open space around, the allotments forms a continuation of the open area the argument stated that the flats has created a precedent for building this will equally if to building on the allotments and infilling up Dugard Place (especially if the Church allotment owners wants funds)
It said that the Parish Council gives support this should be disregarded as all talks were carried out in private and the general public was excluded and unaware of them taking place, not a democratic process. Also as the first consultation discounted the land on conservation reasons so there were no cause to raise objections.
The New Local Plan contains Protection Policies that should be used to justified that this area is excluded:
HE1. Adversely affecting the setting of a Listed Building, It is the rural setting away from the built environment but within the heart of the village that is so special about this Parkland area.
HE2. Setting of conservation areas and views are important the open area around Barford House has been recognized since the Conservation Policy was formed in 1969 why should it be changed now.
5.155 - historic appearance and interest should be protected from development - this area has always formed part of the historic landscape.
HE4. 5.163 Histroic Parks and Gardens should be protected, maintained and restored - this area formed the economic life of Barford House being the Kitchen gardens, laundry, trade entrance and the boundary formed by the brick wall.
5.166 - Protect views across from listed buildings, the south facing elevations will be blocked by development on this land and also the views from within out will be one of encroachment of new development especially viewed from the formal garden.
HE5. As shown by the present planning application on the Parkland this will lead to the lost of the brick boundary wall and significant of the trade gate entrance to the Park.
The NNPF states that heritage assets are irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropiate to their significance. As Barford House estate has remained unchanged as a "gentleman house" since it was created it should be protected and preserved as such; English Heritage guide to Parks and Gardens (page 5) clearly described such a residence that is here in Barford.
Barford village development
Option 6 (H20) - Land South of Barford House.
The purpose of the objection is to protect the historic open landscape of this area of Barford Village.
This is comes in two parts,
1, The historic parkland of Barford House and its setting.
2, The openness of the area link with the historic character of the built village and the open countryside beyond.
The landscape appraisals combined with the conservation policy for the village formed in 1996 and reviewed in 2002 and the Council own refusals to build on the parkland since 1973 including appeal inspector decisions, shows that this is a very important and sensitivity area.
In the first consultation of the Local Plan consultation the land was excluded as unsuitable due to conservation reasons now in the second consultation it is deemed acceptable.
Nothing has changed to the area since the consultations.
The second consultation says " a small enclosed site with some limited potential for a sensitively designed development."
This is miss leading as the land form parts of the larger Parkland area south of Barford House and there is no physical separation.
Regardless of the number built it will be an isolated development projecting into the open area within the heart of the village.
It will not relate to the built form of the village.
It will block the views across the area and to and form Barford House.
It will lead to pressure to build similarly on the adjoining allotments.
It will lead to the tranquillity of the area being spoilt and the quite enjoyment of the occupants in the retirement flats and Barford House.
Until the present owner purchase the land in the 70`s it was used for sheep grazing forming a very rural setting to the house since then it has been left unattended and now forms a wildlife sanctuary due to the enclosed boundaries.
Historic Concerns:
The actual area of land proposed was the kitchen gardens for Barford House this is clearly shown on plans and aerial photos, also the laundry building for the house were situated along side the boundary wall in this area.
The land has always been recognized as part of Barford House estate and its boundary being formally designated by the Council this year.
The brick boundary wall and brick gated pier service entrance will be lost and/or their signification lost to the house due to any development.
The views from Barford House south across the land part of which formed
the original pleasure grounds will be blocked and spoilt with the encroachment of the development. And the tranquillity of the area especially at night will be lost.
This " triangular" area of the village bounded by the Wellesbourne Road, Church Street and the allotment public footpath east consist to the greater part of eighteen century buildings the inclusion of modern buildings within this and which will have to be built to current building specifications will harm and devalue the historic uniqueness.
Planning History of the Land south of Barford House:
In 1975 11 dwellings were refused and upheld on appeal due to lost of open space being an important factor. (T/APP/2462/A/74.3103/09).
In 1981 24 dwellings were refused and upheld on appeal "unacceptable effect on the form and character of the village and open setting of Barford House" the inspector also said that the council would find it difficult to resist similar proposals on the other parts of the open area ie the allotments.
(T/APP/5399/A/81/11641/G9).
In 1986 24 dwellings were refused on lost of visual character and open space.-Within the proposed land area.
In 1987 12 dwellings redrawn due new village boundary being adopted. -Within the proposed land area.
In 2011 application to build 58 dwellings on the whole parkland refused on conservation issues and upheld at appeal.
In 2013 application to build 50 dwellings on the whole parkland refused on conservation issues appeal pending.
Issues with controlling building on the land if the land is approved for development:
The SA report required a "limited sensitively designed development" in reality how achievable will this be when commercial developers principle interest is to gain the highest financial returns from the land. The SA requires the application for the Nursery site in Barford to have protected landscape boundaries between the existing houses the developers are already ignoring this requirement and are only showing one area of landscape, The developers Sharba Homes have already shown how little regards to the conservation issues in their recent planning applications on the Parkland if designated for development now this will not improve.
In the first consultation the land the land was classied for five dwellings now it has been increased to eight but these are not binding figures so developers will aim for the highest number as been seen over the years through the many planning applications to build on this area of land with up a possible twenty dwellings in the last application on the same area of land, it is difficult to see how the numbers could be controlled to achieve a sensitive limited development.
The proposed boundary line (north) needs to be redrawn to be at least in line with the built form of the retirement home and parallel to the road (see diagram) as oppose to going further into the land with the boundary drawn along the retirement home. Ideally the boundary should be drawn closer to the road with the historic assets ie the wall being outside this would allow for more open views as oppose to a compact development and to preserve the historic features by creating a road side development.
The parameters of what will be acceptable should form an part of the conditions for the land to be included within the Local Plan and not left until a planning application stage. This should include dwelling numbers, roof heights, landscaping areas, style and use.
As the land is within the same ownership of the rest of the parkland part of the planning condition should be to repair and upkeep of the whole of the estate, such as the boundary walls, the trees etc.
Alternatives to using this land for building:
This is the only isolated site put forward in the option consultation for the village and only one that has historic and landscape that will be harmed through being developed all the rest are adjacent to the built form of the village and so should be reviewed on this bases when evaluating the other especially if development is based on small scale developments.
The car sales option should be retained as it is most suitable, and the recent application for six dwellings on Westham lane next to the granted six and the pending sixty houses on the other side of the lane could be exchanged for this site now that this area of the village landscape has been changed in landscape character.
Also the recent announcement of land for 5,000 homes near Coventry should be used instead of using the villages as development zones.
New Local Plan sections Village Site Appraisal Matrix April 2014 and Landscape Assessment Update April 2014 have in correct and misleading statements:
It states that the land is adjacent to a listed park and garden it has always been part of Barford House parkland and the boundary was formally approved by the District this year.
It is stated that it the land is sandwiched between two flats and the allotments the flats are a single combined block of retirement flats with open space around, the allotments forms a continuation of the open area the argument stated that the flats has created a precedent for building this will equally if to building on the allotments and infilling up Dugard Place (especially if the Church allotment owners wants funds)
It said that the Parish Council gives support this should be disregarded as all talks were carried out in private and the general public was excluded and unaware of them taking place, not a democratic process. Also as the first consultation discounted the land on conservation reasons so there were no cause to raise objections.
The New Local Plan contains Protection Policies that should be used to justified that this area is excluded:
HE1. Adversely affecting the setting of a Listed Building, It is the rural setting away from the built environment but within the heart of the village that is so special about this Parkland area.
HE2. Setting of conservation areas and views are important the open area around Barford House has been recognized since the Conservation Policy was formed in 1969 why should it be changed now.
5.155 - historic appearance and interest should be protected from development - this area has always formed part of the historic landscape.
HE4. 5.163 Histroic Parks and Gardens should be protected, maintained and restored - this area formed the economic life of Barford House being the Kitchen gardens, laundry, trade entrance and the boundary formed by the brick wall.
5.166 - Protect views across from listed buildings, the south facing elevations will be blocked by development on this land and also the views from within out will be one of encroachment of new development especially viewed from the formal garden.
HE5. As shown by the present planning application on the Parkland this will lead to the lost of the brick boundary wall and significant of the trade gate entrance to the Park.
The NNPF states that heritage assets are irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropiate to their significance. As Barford House estate has remained unchanged as a "gentleman house" since it was created it should be protected and preserved as such; English Heritage guide to Parks and Gardens (page 5) clearly described such a residence that is here in Barford.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66400
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
We also object to H20, part of the locally listed Barford House site.
See attached