Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Object

Representation ID: 63213

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Sharba Homes wish to promote the development of Site 6. It is a visually enclose site, and one of derelict, overgrown shrub and in landscape terms would be less sensitive compared to the Taylor Wimpey site which is in open view to the public.
-The analysis and design approach demonstrated that residential development of a particular scale and character could be accommodated and the landscape and visual effects, adverse but localised and would not be significant on balance.
-The Landscape study's identification of this LCP as high sensitivity is not justification for a landscape refusal in this instance.

Object

Representation ID: 63214

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-The only site that has been included has been Site 1 Radford Semele directly adjacent the Parish Church and listed buildings. The LCP identified as RS_02 notes on several occasions how important this LCP is to the setting of the Church and associated buildings and defining the notable character of the village core. This is very arguably understated and should be in 'high sensitivity'.

Object

Representation ID: 63215

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

The site specific work being carried out independently is leading to conclusions that Site 3 Radford Semele does retain capacity for residential development and is capable of being mitigated and would be acceptable in landscape and visual terms.

-Site 3 lies within High/medium sensitivity and is discounted on the basis of highways access, potential hedgerow loss, impact on the open corridor setting and incursion into open countryside. Unlike Site 1, elements such as views and the setting of listed buildings are not considered. How and why Site 3 has been discounted in the context of Site 1 being preferred?

Object

Representation ID: 63216

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-Much is made of the needs of Green Belt villages to grow and be sustainable. Green Belt policy has always been intended to be permanently restrictive. A simple change of mind by WDC does not meet 'Exceptional' or 'Very Special' circumstances to override this permanence.

-Green Belt review in order to accommodate the level of housing anticipated is not sufficient to provide the 'Very Special Circumstance' in respect of planning appeals and it would be insufficient to provide 'Exceptional Circumstances' required to amend the Green Belt through the Development Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 63217

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

With reference to Site 6 Barford from Appendix 6 matrix:
-There is no reason to 'net' site down from 0.74 to 0.3 ha (Statement of Common Ground, Sharba Appeal).
-Development would not harm protected hedgerows or trees of significance on Site 6.
-Development would have no impact on the setting of the listed building. There is no intervisibility or remaining functional link between Barford House and Site 6.
-The site is currently abandoned, not 'Garden Land'.
-The Inspector at the recent Sharba Appeal concluded that development would meet the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development as per NPPF.