Home > Planning > Planning Policy

Niobe

Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.

You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.

Representations on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - SS0113 - Land to the east of Kenton Street, Kenton

Representation ID: 10548

OBJECT Anchor Storage Ltd (Mr Stephen Britt) represented by Phil Cobbold Planning Ltd (Mr Phil Cobbold)

Summary:

The development of site SS0113 for residential purposes would not represent sustainable development and would conflict with the NPPF.

More details about Rep ID: 10548

Representation ID: 10285

COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)

Summary:

The site allocations being considered at Kenton are relatively large and are both in
close proximity to several listed buildings. Site SS0113 sites opposite the Grade II*
listed Church of All Saints. The presence of these heritage assets and their settings
should be considered carefully as part of the site allocation process.

More details about Rep ID: 10285

Representation ID: 8398

OBJECT Mrs Chantelle Apps

Summary:

We feel that building on any valuable Grade 1 agricultural land totally unacceptable especially where there is unused brownfield sites available in the village.
This proposed 'ribbon development' will undoubtedly turn into an estate & the infrastructure of this village would not cope.

More details about Rep ID: 8398

Representation ID: 8120

OBJECT Mr James Ryan

Summary:

Village has no real amenities (church and field) and infrastructure (notably Highways - further risk of accidents) could not sustain the development. I am concerned of the environmental impact using farmed Grade 1 agricultural land when derelict/unoccupied sites would be more appropriate. i.e. Grade 3 agricultural land adjacent to Church Close/adjacent derelict Turkey Sheds. Council should approach the owners of these sites to develop; it would be more appropriate use of land for the housing requirement. Application has an unduly disproportionate impact on Kenton in comparison to other villages within the plan.

More details about Rep ID: 8120

Representation ID: 7760

OBJECT Kenton Parish Council (Mr Chris Goldsmith)

Summary:

Kenton Parish Meeting decision. The greenfield site (SS0113) be rejected for development.

More details about Rep ID: 7760

Representation ID: 7450

OBJECT Julie Rose

Summary:

The proposals would result in increasing the number of houses in the village by more than 50% which would damage / destroy the character of the village. As the village has no facilities, residents have to travel out of the village for these therefore additional developments would create significant traffic issues. Our greatest concern is the safety of road users and pedestrians as the local roads / lanes, which are already prone to speeding traffic, are not suitable for a significant increase in usage. The numbers being proposed are significantly disproportionate to the size and character of the village.

More details about Rep ID: 7450

Representation ID: 6650

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Jamieson

Summary:

Land is Grade 1 agricultural land. Development is far more than the village can sustain. Other alternative suitable sites available in the village. Kenton is being required to provide more than its share of houses under the plan and it is totall inequitable that this level od development is being imposed on the village which does not have the infrastructure to support this level of development

More details about Rep ID: 6650

Representation ID: 5749

OBJECT Mr Derek Alway

Summary:

This ribbon development seems wholly inappropriate on this land in that it is grade 1 arable land and will devastate the rural nature of the village. This field is in full production every year and this development by its very nature will decrease the local ability to supply the UK food chain in light of an ever growing population, therefore from a sustainability point of view this development would represent a retrograde step.

More details about Rep ID: 5749

Representation ID: 4925

OBJECT MR Ian Jamieson

Summary:

The site proposed is Grade1 agricultural land and as such should not be considered for development. In addition the proposed development is in conflict with the existing policy of only allowing "Strip Development" within Villages and hamlets. Given the total numbers proposed for Kenton under this plan the number of houses proposed on this site would be an increase of 33% of the existing housing stock in the village and the infrastructure of the village could not sustain such a large number of additional houses.

More details about Rep ID: 4925

Representation ID: 4866

OBJECT Mr Michael Heath

Summary:

The proposed development places a disproportionate and unfair responsibility on the hamlet to accommodate the District's need for new housing development whilst many other communities escape the same obligation. Furthermore, the development of this greenfield site would:
- increase housing stock out of all proportion to the hamlet's current size
- sacrifice valuable farming land and create an irreversible precedent for further indiscriminate greenfield development in the area
- have a profound negative environmental impact
- radically worsen the distinctiveness of an essentially rural, agricultural landscape
- endanger lives of residents by creating 'rat runs' within local lanes

More details about Rep ID: 4866

Representation ID: 4524

OBJECT Mr Robin Franklin

Summary:

50 houses in Kenton is out of proportion and unsuitable to the size of the and nature of this rural village. Improvement in facilities such as schools, doctors and employment in larger villages in the area would be essential but access to them would present many practical problems of volume of traffic, public transport etc. However, the development of the brownfield to the east of Eye Road site for housing which would reduce the traffic of large, heavy lorries on our narrow lanes would be acceptable if done sensitively and responsibly but the agricultural land opposite should not be developed.

More details about Rep ID: 4524

Representation ID: 2277

OBJECT mrs catherine smith

Summary:

The development of this greenfield site would not enhance the landscape and would be disproportionate to a village of this size with a strong rural character.
There are no mains drainage, no school, no shops, no communal facilities apart from a church, no leisure facilities, no local transport, no footpaths along the roads, very poor broadband and little local employment.
The local roads are not suitable for increased traffic.
In summary, Kenton is a rural hamlet completely unsuited to this scale of development.

More details about Rep ID: 2277

Representation ID: 1469

OBJECT Dennis Howard

Summary:

How can you now propose surrounding my property with 20 houses opposite and 30 to the side and rear. Yet I was refused planning under section 106. Perhaps you could consider my previous application refusal reference 2634/08.

More details about Rep ID: 1469

Representation ID: 906

OBJECT Mr Colin Nash

Summary:

No local transport available
Highway not suitable for extra traffic
Housing and employment cannot be met fully
No schools within walking distance
No footpaths of road
HGVs already using these narrow roads
Drs surgery is over filled already
No core services or work available
No utilities, main sewage, water mains, gas
Crested Newts are within vicinity
More chance of flooding, ditches are already near to over flooding in heavy rain
Loss of views and possible loss of light
The village cannot sustain any more houses there is no meeting places or local facilities.

More details about Rep ID: 906

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult