Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18622

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Chrostopher Carver

Representation Summary:

I note that the objections raised in the original application for Change of Use of Land in the Green Belt remain unchanged (application ref 11/00683/FUL). The Planning Inspector's report (APP/H1515/A/12/2173169) made a recommendation for the granting of temporary planning permission for a period of 3 years, it clearly states that "very special circumstances do not exist and a permanent permission is not justified" and would be "unacceptable". Therefore objections made due to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Full text:

I note that the objections raised in the original application for Change of Use of Land in the Metropolitan Green Belt remain unchanged (application ref 11/00683/FUL). I also draw attention to the fact that although the Planning Inspector's report (as referred to in APP/H1515/A/12/2173169) made a recommendation for the granting of temporary planning permission for a period of 3 years (subject to conditions), it also clearly states that "very special circumstances do not exist and a permanent permission is not justified" and would be "unacceptable" - a view upheld by the Secretary of State. These objections centred on inappropriate development in the Green Belt, impacting on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the markedly rural area; not constituting a sustainable form of development; and the effect on Curtis Mill Green SSSI. It is understood that subsequent revised Planning Policy (based on the consultation response of August 2015) was designed to strengthen Green Belt protection. Also, the intentional and apparent existing breach of planning control on the site should be a material consideration in granting permanent planning permission or 'regularisation'. Furthermore it is noted that several conditions of the temporary planning permission have been violated, including: 1. Frequent and improper burning of waste materials on the site - leading to potentially prejudicial health effects on the immediate neighbours; 2. Erection of additional structures within the site boundary; 3. Commercial activities (vehicle repair) - leading to substantial deleterious effects on the condition of the track providing access to the site; 4. Unauthorised clearing of land, adjacent to the SSSI and outside of the agreed boundary of the site. In summary, I object to the proposed regularisation of the site in question as it appears to be in contradiction of stated government policy, as well as the impact on the character and appearance of the locality (adjacent to, and with access via, the SSSI) and adverse effect on the residential amenity of the neighbours (improper disposal of waste by open fire, prejudicial health effects, deteriorating track condition, permanent visual impact of the development). However, in the event that the site is approved for regularisation, I would expect the original conditions as stated in the Planning Inspector's report to be met (e.g. with regard to formal drainage facilities) and that there is adequate enforcement of permitted activities on the site, in the interests of maintaining good community relations.