Woolverstone

Showing comments 1 to 8 of 8

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16219

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Mr Matthew March

Representation:

Redrawing the boundary to the north of the Walled Garden encourages further development in what is a quite beautiful place and part of our irreplaceable national heritage.
Development needs to happen but there are surely other parts of the district with superior infrastructure where development would be more feasible than the relatively remote Shotley Peninsula. The document seems to accept that development should take place in parts of the district with the infrastructure to cope.

Full text:

Having read the Plan in its entirety with particular reference to my village of Woolverstone I would like to make the following comments.
Firstly the redrawing of the boundary to put it to the north of the Walled Garden makes no strategic sense, other than to encourage further development in what is a quite beautiful place, part of our irreplaceable national heritage. Our local authority needs to treasure this asset rather than bringing into play for development.

Secondly, I am profoundly concerned at the totally disproportionate target for house building in what the authority has now, correctly, designated a hamlet. Thirty one houses will increase the size of the village by approaching thirty percent. This in a place which lacks every facility other than a church.

The Strategic Plan makes considerable play of the over arching infrastructure. The Shotley Peninsula is already creaking under the pressure of a single, twisty road. The planned Ganges development and that proposed for Chelmondiston will bring perhaps a further 700 vehicles onto this road. Alongside this, the local schools are already overflowing and the medical facilities are currently struggling to cope.

I freely accept that development needs to happen in the face of a growing population, and of generational changes in our society but there are surely other parts of the district with superior infrastructure where development would be more feasible than the relatively remote Shotley Peninsula. This is not nimbyism but a dispassionate and considered response to the document which in laying out its parameters seems to accept that development should take place in parts of the district with the infrastructure to cope.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16223

Received: 30/07/2019

Respondent: Mrs Patricia March

Representation:

Redrawing the boundary to the north of the Walled Garden encourages further development in what is quite a beautiful place and part of our irreplaceable national heritage.
Development needs to happen but there are surely other parts of the district with superior infrastructure where development would be more feasible than the relatively remote Shotley Peninsula. The document seems to accept that development should take place in parts of the district with the infrastructure to cope.

Full text:

Having read the Plan in its entirety with particular reference to my village of Woolverstone I would like to make the following comments.

Firstly the redrawing of the boundary to put it to the north of the Walled Garden makes no strategic sense, other than to encourage further development in what is a quite beautiful place, part of our irreplaceable national heritage. Our local authority needs to treasure this asset rather than bringing into play for development.

Secondly, I am profoundly concerned at the totally disproportionate target for house building in what the authority has now, correctly, designated a hamlet. Thirty one houses will increase the size of the village by approaching thirty percent. This in a place which lacks every facility other than a church.

The Strategic Plan makes considerable play of the over arching infrastructure. The Shotley Peninsula is already creaking under the pressure of a single, twisty road. The planned Ganges development and that proposed for Chelmondiston will bring perhaps a further 700 vehicles onto this road. Alongside this, the local schools are already overflowing and the medical facilities are currently struggling to cope.

I freely accept that development needs to happen in the face of a growing population, and of generational changes in our society but there are surely other parts of the district with superior infrastructure where development would be more feasible than the relatively remote Shotley Peninsula. This is not nimbyism but a dispassionate and considered response to the document which in laying out its parameters seems to accept that development should take place in parts of the district with the infrastructure to cope.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17503

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Michael Crouch

Representation:

I object to the redrawn built up area boundary. Specifically the inclusion of the important gaps in the street to the south of the B.1456 either side of the village hall and next to junction with Glebe Lane. There do not appear to be any extant planning permissions in these gaps so I cannot see the justfication for their inclusion within the BUA and what will then be their inevitable development. The Conservation Area designation statement of 1989 placed much importance of these gaps in this special estate village, and they should be retained and excluded from the BUA.

Full text:

I object to the redrawn built up area boundary. Specifically the inclusion of the important gaps in the street to the south of the B.1456 either side of the village hall and next to junction with Glebe Lane. There do not appear to be any extant planning permissions in these gaps so I cannot see the justfication for their inclusion within the BUA and what will then be their inevitable development. The Conservation Area designation statement of 1989 placed much importance of these gaps in this special estate village, and they should be retained and excluded from the BUA.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18863

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Woolverstone Parish Council

Representation:

The majority of the village of Woolverstone is located within its own Conservation Area.Most important to Woolverstone is to see its designated Conservation Area protected and enhanced by planning policies and not being degraded by policy decisions. Second most important is to retain the vistas of ancient estate farmland and hedges without further development on the fertile (Grade 1 and 2) “greenfield” sites offered through the call for sites which have been listed in the Local Plan as being suitable for development.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19415

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Rogers

Representation:

The scale and location of the development would result in landscape harm, undermining the open character and rural setting of the village.
The loss of agricultural land and views across such significantly impacts the current natural look and feel of the conservation area.

Highway infrastructure, services and facilities cannot support further development.

Woolverstone already has approved plans for sufficient new development (20 houses) to meet the current local plan.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 20651

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Woolverstone Parish Council

Representation:

The extension eastwards to include the buildings around the Walled Garden development is inappropriate
because when this development was granted planning permission it was done so under the express
condition that this area, also in the AONB, could only be built in because it would preserve the Grade 2
listed Walled garden and associated structures

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 20654

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Woolverstone Parish Council

Representation:

SS0255 - Greenfield site used solely for agriculture, Grade 1 and 2 listed agricultural land. Would require lifting of a covenant. Part of the field is in Woolverstone Conservation Area and adjacent to AONB. Site rejected in 2016 SHELAA for inadequately related to services, facilities, it remains so. Site has not changed. Density inappropriate for its location within Conservation Area and seems to contradict local plan policies. Would degrade historic layout created by Woolverstone Park estate which should be protected as part of Conservation Area and AONB Project Area. Seems extraordinary that land across the road (SS0202, SS0538 and SS1180) is rejected.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 20655

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Woolverstone Parish Council

Representation:

SS0203 - Greenfield site always used solely for agriculture. Grade 2 listed arable land. Part of the field is in Woolverstone Conservation Area and adjacent to AONB. Site rejected in 2016 SHELAA for inadequately related to services, facilities, it remains so. Site has not changed. Density inappropriate for its location within Conservation Area and seems to contradict local plan policies. Would degrade historic layout created by Woolverstone Park estate which should be protected as part of Conservation Area and AONB Project Area. Seems extraordinary that land across the road (SS0202, SS0538 and SS1180) is rejected.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments: