Response from Mr Brian Abbott (Individual)
1. Mr Brian Abbott (Individual) : 27 May 2008 11:32:00
To which part of the Report does your representation relate?
Paragraph or Section
3.39 - 3.43 PO2 - Rural Areas - Introduction
Please state as clearly as you can the exact part of the Report you are commenting on by quoting the page number (if known), paragraph number, option name or number, or the number of the map, figure or table.
Preferred Option page 46
Do you support, oppose or have an observation about this part of the Report?
Oppose
Please write your comment or explain your reasons for supporting or opposing this part of the Report. You may also wish to refer to the tests of soundess in the glossary of the Preferred Options document before making your comments.
1.The draft results of the Housing Needs Survey do not reveal any requirment for affordable housing in Bardsea.
2.There is no requirment for more development for sale at market value. There are 5 existing houses and a building plot for sale within 50 mtrs of the post office, and have been for more than 12 months.
3.Most residents in Bardsea do not want new development on green fields outside the present development boundary which has served Bardsea well since the Orchard estate was built, and will continue to do so.
4.Those isolated comments coming back from the Housing Needs Survey suggesting development of green fields behind the Braddylls and alongside the Malt Kiln most probably come from the owners of that land who have tried in the past to get planning approval and failed.
5.To remove the present boundary will facilitate new applications on those sites.
6.Why should the present boundary be abandoned when there is no demonstrated demand for more housing? Is there a hidden agenda? The meeting at Gleaston did not reveal all that is going on - evidenced by the reply to the question about brown field sites!
7.The safeguards proposed by the preferred option will not be effective, they havn't worked in the past.If the present boundary is taken away applications will follow. We are not satisfied that S.L.D.C. will be able to resist them. Even if they do, there will be appeals and we all know what happens next - objectors are not told about the appeal hearing and the is no further right of appeal. Bingo! Once one field is developed the case is lost and we are straight into the creeping paralysis of planning.
8.We seem to be heading towards a one size fits all situation. That may be convenient but there is no justification for it and no reason why different rules apply in different localities.
9.S.L.D.C. promotes itself as a tourist destination. Is that why 4000 people want to come and live here? You can't keep building more houses in small villages to satisfy the demand. Such a policy will result in the destruction of the very reason why people want to come, but it might do wonders for chief officer's salaries!
10. Finally what is sustainabiliy? It seems to be the current planning buzz-word. If it means preserving local services then it didn't work when the size of the village was virtually doubled when the Orchard estate was built. It is still seen as something separate, known locally as 'the reservation' and the post office is still going to close and the bus service cease to operate
What change(s) would you suggest for this part of the Report?
Preserve the existing development boundary around Bardsea and adopt Option 2.
Please indicate if you wish to be notified when the Core Strategy has been:
Adopted by the District Council
Submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination