29.10

Object

Representation ID: 2586

Received: 02/03/2023

Respondent: Mr david easto

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Inaccurate to describe the site as being to the west of eel catcher close. The site is enclosing eel catcher close on all sides, creating a block of buildings to make only street with no open access to fields at the rear . The site is far too large. THe guidelines state that one hectare is the average and best size for a cluster and this is far bigger. We have already had a new development of 30 houses in the last two years and plans have been rejected behind eel catcher close twice.

Object

Representation ID: 2671

Received: 04/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Janet Rogers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

As advised in 2021 the site is outside the development area. Eel Catcher Close was developed strictly under the terms of a Rural Exception Site for social housing only. When permission was granted under those terms, the Parish Council and its parishioners were given assurance at a public meeting that this would not set a precedent for further development of the adjoining land.

Object

Representation ID: 2693

Received: 04/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Tamlyn Francis

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The visual impact of more housing on this site will be seen for miles, Eel Catcher Close is already clearly visible from the other side of the Valley and more housing of this scale would be unbearable in what is a beautiful and special natural environment, with just arable farming land. There are ancient trees along the footpath. The villagers were given assurance that no more develoment would be allowed after Eel Catcher Close was built and this must be honoured.

Object

Representation ID: 2733

Received: 05/03/2023

Respondent: mr johnny fincham

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Regulation 18 document claims wrongly that Eel Catcher Close development in
2017 set a precedent for development. Planning permission previously refused in this area.
Any development running behind eel catcher close would destroy all access and open views and privacy would be destroyed.
There is a covenant stopping building on the land behind Eel Catcher Close (title number NK484850).
Councils assessment of site's effect proven to be woefully inadequate by independent report.
21 buildings have been placed opposite Eel Catcher Close.

Object

Representation ID: 2841

Received: 06/03/2023

Respondent: Mr paul robinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

wrong description of site plan, failure to mention RED indication for traffic access, blocking rear of eel catcher close would mean only these houses in the whole village would be without open access to the rear. No precedent established. OUtside village boundary. Protective covenant on land at rear of the close. Footpath would be nearly a mile to centre of village and no pavement or walkway.

Object

Representation ID: 2957

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Peter Armitage

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The housing will have a major visual impact on the area making it less attractive as a tourist destination.
It will have an adverse affect on wildlife by reductiing habitat space, especially for birds such as skylarks which nest in those fields; a once common bird but whose numbers have plummetted in recent years. Those fields have been frequented by flocks of geese ; I enclose photos I have taken of large flocks of geese using those fields, allocated for housing. Badgers have also been seen in the area.
We cannot afford to lose any more mature trees

Object

Representation ID: 2984

Received: 08/03/2023

Respondent: Rockland St Mary With Hellington Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There are a number of issues regarding Public Right of Way, footpaths and road safety. Please see the attached documents.