Neighbourhood Plan - Residents' Feedback

 

   
FOLLOW THESE LINKS FOR MORE FEEDBACK
General Feed Back
Feed Back from Public Meetings
Feedback re. Thorney Road Feedback re. SB01201 West of Stein Road and SB08329 North of South Lane
Feedback Land East of Breach Ave. SB08328 Land between Nutbourne East and West
Feedback South of Cooks Lane  Feedback HT08337  North of Penny Lane South

SB08328  South of Cooks Lane

 

bjection letter for Planning Application 14/00661/OUT; 14/00662/OUT; 14/00663/OUT

 


 

OBJECTION LETTER

 

In addition to criticisms we have catalogued at length previously with regards to the above detailed proposed development  . . . we wish to draw your attention as follows: 

·         The Application is entitled ‘Development of the site by the erection of 112 dwellings with associated access onto and widening of Cooks Lane, parking, open space and landscaping.’ And we draw your attention to the text underlined namely ‘widening of Cooks Lane’ . . .

·         With reference to the attached document ‘Best Practice Guidance on the Validation of Planning Applications’ published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister we draw your attention to page 11 paragraph 2 as follows ‘. . .  The application site must be edged clearly with a red line. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development – for example, land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings.’.

·         We would note that both the title of the application and documents included as part of the application relate to the widening of Cooks Lane . . . and that Cooks Lane is not included in the red line area denoted on application drawings.

·         Therefore in its current form the application has been incorrectly validated by Chichester District Council – and cannot be considered in its current form.

·         Furthermore – neither the ‘red line’ nor the description of the application can be altered during the course of the application . . . as this effectively changes the fundamental basis of the application.

·         There is no other option than for the applicant to withdrawal the application – and resubmit with revised and fully coherent information.

 


 

Objection letter for Planning Application 14/00661/OUT
Objections are raised to the proposed development of 112 dwellings with associated access onto land on the south side of Cooks Lane, Southbourne: read the full objection HERE

Putting our objections to one side – we are particularly frustrated by the quality of the information contained within the application – which is contradictory and misleading as follows:

 

·         The arboricultural assessment does not show the established lines of Damsons and Apple trees which create a habitat for bats along the eastern boundary of the site (bounding properties in Inlands Road).

·         Whilst a desktop Flood Risk Assessment may have been conducted – the events of recent years would suggest the site (and locality) is subject to flooding (photo pages attached refer) – and the private drainage systems for properties in Inlands Road overflow during these periods of very high water table / saturated ground – and we would request by copy of this email that the Environmental Agency and Chichester District Council re-review and update their records (we are happy to be contacted with regards this matter as appropriate).

·         A Phase II Bat survey has been undertaken – and the proposed layout of dwellings blatantly disregards the conclusions of the report – with dwelling proposed in the line of established bat flight paths.

·         A Phase II Bat survey – suggest light levels 0-1 Lux and that Light Levels from Residential Properties should be kept to a minimum – The feedback from Sussex Police Crime Prevention suggest ‘. . . lighting will be an important consideration, both in car parking areas, around the buildings and communal areas . . .’

·         Feedback from Liz Rogers ‘. . . a buffer strip around the hedgerows (5m) . . . ‘ – Units 109/110 and 111/112 and the outbuilding to the south are closer than 5m from the extent established treeline canopy to the eastern boundary.

·         The vehicle tracking information shows a refuse vehicle driving over the boundary planting – and visibility splays which cut through lines of trees and hedges – that the ecology statement suggests are retained.

 

 

 


 

I have reviewed these plans and have many issues and would like to formally oppose these plans, for the following reasons:

 

The main issue is access.  Cars will not use the Stein Road access, due to the length of time the train gates stay down at Southbourne Station.  As is the case now, cars will instead use Inlands Road as a cut through.  Inlands Road does not have street lighting at the top end, no pavements and part of the road narrows so only one car can pass.  All these issues would need to be resolved before 100's more cars use this cut through. 

 

This is not the right site as the access is a major issue.

 

There have been major flooding issues in Inlands Road, further building would only make this worse.

 

Will the drainage be upgraded due to the loss of the fields for drainage and to support an already overloaded system?

 

This is a strategic gap dividing Southbourne and Nutbourne, this needs to stay.

 

Damage to the wildlife - hedgehogs, wild rabbits, foxes and horses live in this field, taking this away will kill them.

 

There are too many houses in the plan, especially at the eastern side.

 

Please keep me posted regarding these plans.


MORE FEED BACK  
General Feed Back
Feed Back from Public Meetings
Feedback re. Thorney Road Feedback re. SB01201 West of Stein Road and SB08329 North of South Lane
Feedback Land East of Breach Ave. SB08328 Land between Nutbourne East and West
   Feedback HT08337  North of Penny Lane South