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
OBJECT Anchor Storage Ltd (Mr Stephen Britt) represented by Phil Cobbold Planning Ltd (Mr Phil Cobbold)
The development of site SS0113 for residential purposes would not represent sustainable development and would conflict with the NPPF.
COMMENT Historic England (Katie Parsons)
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.
OBJECT Mrs Chantelle Apps
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.
OBJECT Mr James Ryan
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.
OBJECT Kenton Parish Council (Mr Chris Goldsmith)
Kenton Parish Meeting decision. The greenfield site (SS0113) be rejected for development.
OBJECT Julie Rose
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.
OBJECT Mrs Margaret Jamieson
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
OBJECT Mr Derek Alway
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.
OBJECT MR Ian Jamieson
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.
OBJECT Mr Michael Heath
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
OBJECT Mr Robin Franklin
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.
OBJECT mrs catherine smith
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.
OBJECT Dennis Howard
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.
OBJECT Mr Colin Nash
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.