Policy 9.10: Established Areas of Development in the Green Belt
Object
Draft Local Plan
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
"...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
Draft Local Plan
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.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
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.
See attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan
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".
See attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan
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.
See attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan
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.
See attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan
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.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
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".
See attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan
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.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
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".
See attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan
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.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
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".
See attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan
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.
See attached