Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Object

Representation ID: 63203

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Within Barford, a visible edge of village site with 'medium landscape sensitivity' is preferred over a 'heritage sensitive' site with hidden landscape. In comparison, 'heritage sensitive' sites within Radford Semele are preferred over sites that have 'medium landscape sensitivity' on the edge of the village. This is inconsistent in the logic and recommendations used and makes virtually opposite arguments for two similar sites, without any justification for the complete change of opinion between the two.

Object

Representation ID: 63204

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

Considering two components (landscape and highways), a positive and proactive approach is taken to Radford Semele site 1, whilst a negative and restrictive approach is taken to the central Barford site:
-Highways: In Radford, both sites are identified to have highways constraints to be resolved. Rather than presume positively or negatively in both case, a biased solution for each site assumes that one can be solved and the other not, wrongly in both cases.
-Landscape: Radford Semele preferred option with 'very high heritage impact' is selected over less sensitive 'edge of town site', which is the opposite in Barford.

Object

Representation ID: 63205

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-There is an increasing body of appeal casework that concludes that settlement boundaries - the purpose which is partly to define where development is to be promoted and where it is to be resisted are policies for the supply of housing for the purpose of Par 49 of the Framework. In the absence of a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, such policies are to be considered out of date.

Object

Representation ID: 63206

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-In any event, in the case of Barford the settlement boundary makes no practical sense. Indeed, it seems to have been designed specifically to exclude Barford House and out clients' land.

Object

Representation ID: 63207

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

The uses of the first two criteria in this sieving process in paragraph 5.3 are flawed:
-Sites of excessive size should not automatically preclude it as a potential option, on the basis that not all of it may be developed. Parts of a large site may retain good development potential.
-Preclusion of site based on SHLAA commentary is essentially just making a judgement on the basis of desk survey work done. The reduction in the site selection process from 190 to 77 sites prior to field survey is not considered sound methodology.

Object

Representation ID: 63208

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-The Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological and Geological Study follows considered methodology in respect of identification of the Landscape Character Parcels, not specific sites and there sensitivity to certain types of development. It therefore does not focus on each individual site but the wider area. It unlikely therefore that development on a given site at one end of the LCP is likely to retain the same constrains and opportunities as one at the other end and generate the same landscape and visual effects as one at the other end.

Object

Representation ID: 63209

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-In the Overview of Findings the first column relates to 'parcels' of land more frequently than sites. The detailed appraisal in Appendix 6 makes references to SHLAA Potential Impacts and Greenfield Assessment however there is limited information on such matters as visual amenity; site specific character, contextual townscape analysis and therefore it is considered that the methodological progress from the parcel based approach in Appendix 7 to the site appraisal detailed in Appendix 6 is neither logical nor robust.

Object

Representation ID: 63210

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-No access has ever been requested to Site 6 and the other land within this application has not been considered at all. The only piece of work that can be relied upon to consider in detail all matters of landscape/townscape character, visual amenity, sensitivity and capacity for development of Site 6 is that contained within the Sharba Homes Application documentation. Instead the Consultation documents rely on the less quality work undertaken by the Council that rely on limited assessments, guesswork and unfounded presumptions leading the landscape conclusions and recommendation being materially unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 63211

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Despite planning application W/12/1083 (submitted by Taylor Wimpey) being refused in part due to the impact development would have on the conservation area, it is listed as preferred option site BAR.2 within the report. As the impact on the conservation area would be a critical part of assessing the overall acceptability of the principle of development, it is confusing to understand how this has been included and had a uniformed approach been taken through sites within Barford, this would not be the case.

Object

Representation ID: 63212

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Just because a site lies within a 'high sensitivity' land parcel, it does not follow that it cannot and should not be developed. This would imply that no development should take place in any landscape of high sensitivity, anywhere, whether it is one identified as such as part of a study like this one or a more valued designated landscape such as an AONB.