Comment

Representation ID: 12342

Received: 01/10/2021

Respondent: Christine Leahey

Document Ref. Strategic Allocation WSA3, Site WAH237/ WAH235
The plans state that decisions in planning applications for these sites should be made in accordance with the specific policy requirements. I object on the grounds that this proposal is not taking into account your own policy requirements and design principles as well as these laid out in the Nation Planning Policy Framework.
The policy states proposals for reveloping existing uses within the green belt will only be permitted if very special circumstances can be demonstrated.
The land is currently used of agriculture and should not be changed as per statement above. There are no special circumstances which suggest this designation should be changed nor would it be in line with the framework principles.
Your policy document states that one of the design principles is "improvements to local facilities to support residents & to enhance the sustainability of the existing area, in particular improved capacity at the primary schools and local health centre". The existing area will not be enhanced as there is no infrastructure for transport and schools are oversubscribed as well as the local health centre. Widening the local roads will have a significant negative impact to the local residents, increased traffic, air pollution, noise all of which are identified as factors that would not have an adverse affect on the local area.
There are no existing drainage amenities suitable for such an extensive development and any development will directly contradict your principles of delivering landscape, biodiversity and amenity benefits.
The development will directly and negatively impact your strategy for landscape and habitat creation that provides enhancement, retention and mitigation for established trees and hedges. Any development will have a significant adverse impact on visual amenity and character on aminal species.
The site is in a Mineral Safeguarding area and should be safeguarded as per the National Planning Policy Framework Section 17 "Safeguard mineral resources".
There is a huge need to safeguard our natural resources and this land should be retained for its original designation, agriculture and mineral.
All developments should be based on the "presumption in favour of sustainable development" and the above factors do not comply with this.
The proposals to allocate the site for housing directly contradict your Strategic Priority II which is to protect and enhance the natural biodiversity, wildlife corridors, geological resources, countryside and landscapes. The land is used for agriculture Grade 3a and is consistently producing crops each year. Any change will significantly affect the livlihood and economical well being of the people involved in this valuable food production system.
The proposal to allocate the site for housing directly contradict Strategic Priority 12 which is to protect, sustain and enhance the quality of the built and historic environment whilst ensuring the delivery of distinctive and attractive places. Our area is a very distinctive and attractive place which will be completely decimated and the landscape ruined with development. Visual amenity will be lost and economic detriment on house values for all the local residents.