Object

Representation ID: 13454

Received: 17/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jean Laut

"...new residential development on genuine infill plots, replacement of existing dwellings, or extensions to existing dwellings will be allowed ...." .... "554-664 Rayleigh Road"

This is my area - I don't want this

Object

Representation ID: 15199

Received: 29/04/2016

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Savills UK

Whilst the Spatial Strategy Policy 5.1 identifies that limited development in villages will be acceptable to sustain services, Policy 9.10 sets out the areas in which limited infill only will be acceptable. These are restricted to short frontages of ribbon development and does not include any areas within Blackmore. It is therefore considered that by following only this approach, the Council will put at risk the future sustainability of services within Blackmore.

Comment

Representation ID: 15439

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

The policy effectively removes those frontages from Green Belt designation, in which case there should be no need for the policy and they should be removed from the Green Belt. The principle or basis behind this policy is not supported within the NPPF. The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 15442

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

Paragraph 89 is very clear in regard to the development of infill plots and considers that limited infilling in villages is appropriate development. The relevant frontages set out above are not defined areas of a village. The Council do not have a justified case to "continue to resist strong(ly) pressure to allow new development".

Comment

Representation ID: 15479

Received: 09/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Martin Morecroft

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

There should be no need for the policy and they should be removed from the Green Belt. The principle or basis behind this policy is not supported within the NPPF. The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. This should be a clearly defined and reasonably permanent physical feature in the landscape. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 15480

Received: 09/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Martin Morecroft

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

This submission seeks to support an extension of the frontages set out within the Policy, particularly at Rayleigh Road. Whilst the northern side (nos. 554-664 Rayleigh Road) is considered a relevant frontage to meet the policy, it is requested that the ribbon development located on the southern side, including 741 Rayleigh Road should also be incorporated within frontages identified.

Comment

Representation ID: 15503

Received: 09/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Lunnon

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

There should be no need for the policy and they should be removed from the Green Belt. The principle or basis behind this policy is not supported within the NPPF. The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. This should be a clearly defined and reasonably permanent physical feature in the landscape. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 15504

Received: 09/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Lunnon

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Paragraph 89 of the NPPF is very clear and considers that limited infilling in villages is appropriate development. The relevant frontages set out above are not defined areas of a village. The Council do not have a justified case to "continue to resist strong(ly) pressure to allow new development".

Comment

Representation ID: 15602

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: Robert Mulholland & Co Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

There should be no need for the policy and they should be removed from the Green Belt. The principle or basis behind this policy is not supported within the NPPF. The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. This should be a clearly defined and reasonably permanent physical feature in the landscape. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 15603

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: Robert Mulholland & Co Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Paragraph 89 of the NPPF is very clear and considers that limited infilling in villages is appropriate development. The relevant frontages set out above are not defined areas of a village. The Council do not have a justified case to "continue to resist strong(ly) pressure to allow new development".

Comment

Representation ID: 15666

Received: 10/05/2016

Respondent: Tony Hollioake

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

There should be no need for the policy and they should be removed from the Green Belt. The principle or basis behind this policy is not supported within the NPPF. The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. This should be a clearly defined and reasonably permanent physical feature in the landscape. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 15667

Received: 10/05/2016

Respondent: Tony Hollioake

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Paragraph 89 of the NPPF is very clear and considers that limited infilling in villages is appropriate development. The relevant frontages set out above are not defined areas of a village. The Council do not have a justified case to "continue to resist strong(ly) pressure to allow new development".

Comment

Representation ID: 15668

Received: 10/05/2016

Respondent: Tony Hollioake

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Sites, such as that at Coxtie Green Road (see supporting site location plan), should be considered by the Local Planning Authority as smaller windfall development, which meet the criteria of infill development and combined with other similar sites, can provide considerable housing numbers to help the Council achieve their objectively assessed needs.