Haughley - Green
BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)
Representation ID: 16228
Respondent: Mrs karen nicholls
we are situated at the very end of Fir Tree Lane lane on which every other house is included within the proposed settlement boundary but we are excluded as the currently proposed boundary runs along our front gate.
We purchased and moved to Old Hall Cottage, in late January 2018 (so after the last joint plan consultation) I raised the following concerns to the parish plan consultation in July 2018 but understand from our local councillor that settlement boundary definition is part of the joint plan not the parish plan; hence I now raise this concern again to yourselves.
we are situated at the very end of a lane on which every other house is included within the proposed settlement boundary but we are excluded as the currently proposed boundary runs along our front gate. I request that the settlement boundary for Haughley Green be amended to include our house based on the following supporting evidence.
If you look at old maps our house was an original Haughley Green settlement – so actually we mark the outer point of the original ‘settlement’; Furthermore if you look at old plans etc what is now our drive was originally part of Fir Tree Lane from when our house used to be 3 farms cottages so the lane used to include what is now our drive.
you also state in the words on the plan that Haughley Green contains a number of grade II listed buildings of which we are one; so you mention us when describing the settlement but have excluded us when drawing the boundary line.
I further note the joint plan, regarding the identification of settlement boundaries, states that the new boundaries have been identified to demonstrate the current built-form of settlements - We are a ‘current built-form’ (and have been for a long time as our house dates from around 1600) situated, as already stated, at the very end of a lane on which every other house is included within the proposed boundary. I therefore presume it is an oversight that the proposed boundary runs along our front gate and that Old Hall Cottage is excluded. Also, as our house was I believe extended/renovated in around 1970/ 80 – it should have been identified as a settlement in the stated exercise of looking at planning history.
Additionally I would have assumed that being at the end of an adopted road also points to the fact our road is deemed a residential area and we, as part of that road, should be deemed part of the settlement.
I note that areas outside the boundary (would apply to us in the current proposal) are deemed ‘countryside’ which is clearly not the case. We do not want to be treated any differently to every other house in the village.
I have also emailed in a document containing items that support the above.
The document i sent in shows the proposed boundary the aerial view of haughley green as well as an old map from around 1880 shows this has been the case for many years.
The aerial view shows our house at the end of the lane with fields that are nothing to do with us around it. The lighter fields on the left are owned by the Bakers whose house is some way away, out on the main round on the left hand side of that main road ….
The darker fields on the right are (I think) owned by the farmer out on the other side of the main road. So we are nothing to do with any of the farm land around us.
The old map also shows that our house was a built settlement many years ago.
Please also note that our garden is all at the front of our house – not the back – hence on the pencil line plan it looks like we have a large amount of land that might be considered field like which is not the case once you realise that is actually our only usable garden.
I also in the document included photos showing our garden
View showing proximity to next door and our gate where the current proposed boundary seems to stop
A view taken from our upstairs window showing how we are just at end of lane and we have our house – then the drive with our garden as there is little usable space at the back.