Help regarding planning meeting...

[dirty boy]

Right, just found out there's a planning meeting tonight whereby builders want to build high density development at the corner of my road.

There's a field opposite me, and I think if they got planning for this it could set a precedent for expanding the village outside of its natural boundary (our road)

Are there any quick arguments against it you can give me please? Just obvious stuff to ask..

Edited by dirty boy on Monday 25th January 15:44

[herbialfa]

The most obvious one would be, I assume the development would be outside "The development Boundary" therefore is contrary to The Local Authority Policy!

Next one would be can the local infrastructure cope with "X" number of new houses etc.

[Tuna]

Do you mean the hatched area on that map - what looks like a caravan park at the moment?

Your council should have a development plan (check their website), and the environment agency should have flood risk maps for the area. Check to see what the plan is for your village, and flooding issues. Check for road accidents in that area (an argument against increased traffic).

Remember you don't have a 'right' to a view, so don't get drawn into arguments that the council will regard as irrelevant. More pertinent are local facilities (transport links, shops, recreational areas, road access), size of the village, flood risk and so on.

The parish council may or may not have much say in the matter. More important is to listen to what the planners are saying. They should follow their local plan, and flag any areas under which they have to give this development special attention.

On the other hand, they may require that if a development is undertaken, that the developer also pays to upgrade the road junction(s), and improve local facilities. That may outweigh the 'harm' of bulldozing a caravan site and putting some nice new houses on it.

[CraigW]

not sure if pertinent but try this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8468511.stm

We had similar issues, fought for years, the problem is, they just keep resubmitting plans with minor amendments and it takes ages to fight them. Best of luck.

[herbialfa]

Just noticed you marked in red "Road Floods"

Go onto the Environment Agency webite and punch in your post code.

This should give you an idea of a flood risk to the area!

Is this a Parish Meeting?

Have you spoke to your local councillor about this? If not, get on the phone now!!!!

[herbialfa]

If its a development control committee meeting, then which council is it under?

I/ you could look on line at the comittee report to see what the Planners points are!

[jeevescat]

If its an evening meeting more than likely to be your local parish council, it which case, yes get on the phone to your local councillor now.

They aren't the deciding authority, but are a statutory consultee, who will then pass on any comments or objections to the planning authority who will then decide.

Call the planning office tomorrow to find out more as well as how to register your written objection.

[dirty boy]

Okay thanks.

Not too sure what it is i've been invited to, but I suppose as i'm relatively new to the village (this side anyway) I was unaware until now.

I'm willing to fight it, as the only reason we moved was for the view and garden!

I could put up with a dozen nice houses, but 150!!! no way!

Traffic is already a nightmare, the schools are full, this side of the village is now split off from the new part by a relief road, water pressure is pap (not sure whether that makes a difference?)

We'll see....

[herbialfa]

Is the meeting in your local village hall or at the council officecs?

[Spudler]

Bear in mind developers always put in for more houses than they expect. So 150 may just end up 149, which of course will include the obligatory social housing.

[TooLateForAName]

Check with utility suppliers about the load - we have a drainage system from the 1950s which is at (or actually just beyond) its limit - that was part of our argument against development near us.

Are you in a conservation area?

Is this part of an LDF process or a stand alone application?


You are in for a lot of boring reading of policy documents. check the local policies for environment, sustainability etc.

[Simpo Two]

Traffic congestion/safety, pressure on schools etc due to extra population?




Actually, dig a pond and put some otters in it...

[blueg33]

Speaking as a developer, I generally find that comments from residents tend to be the sort that planners ignore. Issues like traffic impact, possible flooding, utlities infrastructure can all be sorted, they just cost money and the landowner will just get a lower land price.

The key issues will relate to planning policy the area, you need to check the planning policies online.

You may find this meeting is local consultation and an application may not have been made yet. If that is the case and you voice you objections it gives the developer time to address them.

Is this an actual development proposal or is a proposal to allocate the land for development? If its the latter you need to focus on whether the houses are required and whether there are other better and more sustainable sites. If its the former you have to test the application against policy.

It is a big subject with lots of nuances. I have been developing for 20 years and I still use a planning consultant every time.

[Sam_68]

Sorry... bit late to this party, I know, but if you have time before the meeting, the best you can do is read the 'Analysis of all sites (including those not recommended' for Lowestoft and surrounding villages here and focusing your efforts on shouting loudly about the issues aready identified (see page 48 of the report).

Bear in mind that a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare is recommended by central government (to ensure that scarce building land is properly exploited) and politically, affordable housing is considered desirable, so whining about how it wouldn't be so bad if they only built a dozen houses and the effects on your property value 'cos of all the pikeys and single mothers who will be mowing into the housing association plots will do you no favours at all: it will just mark you down as a NIMBY.

Edited by Sam_68 on Monday 25th January 18:51

[andy43]

Simpo Two said:

Actually, dig a pond and put some otters in it...

That, right there, is the winner.
Or newts.
Or claim the campsite is in fact an ethnic minority gay battered wives refuge. You'll walk it.

Edited by andy43 on Monday 25th January 20:35

[dirty boy]

Sam_68 said:

Sorry... bit late to this party, I know, but if you have time before the meeting, the best you can do is read the 'Analysis of all sites (including those not recommended' for Lowestoft and surrounding villages here and focusing your efforts on shouting loudly about the issues aready identified (see page 48 of the report).

Bear in mind that a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare is recommended by central government (to ensure that scarce building land is properly exploited) and politically, affordable housing is considered desirable, so whining about how it wouldn't be so bad if they only built a dozen houses and the effects on your property value 'cos of all the pikeys and single mothers who will be mowing into the housing association plots will do you no favours at all: it will just mark you down as a NIMBY.

Edited by Sam_68 on Monday 25th January 18:51

It's the one on page 52, many thanks for pointing that document out though.

This is what is says.

Site Visit
Site 010 is an elongated site with a narrow frontage on Rushmere Road, close to the
junction of Hall Road and The Street. The site extends back from the road to the
west, parallel to Fairhead Loke. The eastern part of the site is currently in use as a
car sales business, with 2 residential bungalows located behind this. The majority of
the site to the west is in use as a caravan site.
Core Strategy (Submission Version)
Development on site 010 would conflict with CS1 and CS11, which favour
development within existing settlement boundaries on brownfield land.
Key Sustainability Issues
Site 010 is located partly on greenfield land outside the built up area of Carlton
Colville. A range of services are located close by, and there is good access to public
transport.
47
Road access is considered to be substandard, so improvements would be required.
Suffolk County Council has also expressed concerns about drainage. Development
of site 010 for housing would lead to the loss of a source of employment.
Conclusion
Site 010 should not be taken forward as a preferred site. It is not consistent with the
Core Strategy because of its partly greenfield location outside of Carlton Colville.
Development in this location would represent an unnecessary encroachment into the
countryside, and would lead to the loss of a source of employment.

[Sam_68]

dirty boy said:

The eastern part of the site is currently in use as a
car sales business, with 2 residential bungalows located behind this. [b]The majority of
the site to the west is in use as a caravan site.[/b]

Boy, you'd better hope you don't get as big a bd as me working for the developer who's promoting the site!

The obvious solution from where I'm sitting is to lease the site to pikeys for the next 5 years (the LPA couldn't do a damned thing about it, since the site already has an established use for caravans), by which time the locals would be desperate to see us building houses on it!

Hell, it even has a ready-made car sales lot on the frontage for them to sell their stolen cars from....